|
|
Zoning Board of Adjustments
/
building and standards commission
Regular
Session Agenda
July 9, 2015
6:00 PM
City Council Chambers
200 West Walker Street
|
|
|
I.
Call to order and Roll call
of members
II.
Approval of Minutes
A.
June 18, 2015
III.
Other Business
A. Consider and take action to excuse absences for the
June 18, 2015 meeting.
IV.
The Swearing in of
Speakers and Witnesses
V.
Public Hearings and
Action Items from Public Hearings (ZBA)
A. Hold a public
hearing and take action on a Zoning Board of Adjustments Application, ZBA15-04 (810 4th Street), a request for a variance to the minimum side setback
requirement for properties located within the “RNC-HDC” (Residential
Neighborhood Conservation and Historic District Conservation) Overlay District
(Section 125-81.E.) on approximately 0.271 acres zoned “RSF-7-RNC-HDC” (Single
Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet with a
Residential Neighborhood Conservation and Historic District Conservation
Overlay), legally described as lots 9 & 10 of Block 22 of the League City
Townsite, generally located east of
Kansas Avenue and west of Iowa Avenue with an approximate address of 810 4th
Street.
VI.
Public Hearings and
Action Items from Public Hearings (BASC)
A. Hold a public compliance
hearing with possible action on BASC15-01 (311 Perkins Ave.), to
determine whether a building or structure is a dangerous building, to show cause
why the ordered action has not been completed and/or why civil penalties should
not be assessed, and issue any order(s) determined necessary to address such
conditions per 22-331 et. seq. of the League City Code of Ordinances on
property located at 331 Perkins Avenue, League City, Texas 77573, legally
described as Lots one (1) and two (2), Block one (1) of Merchant’s Addition
Subdivision, a subdivision in League City, Galveston County, Texas, according
to the map thereof recorded in Volume 238, Page 12 in the Office of the County
Clerk of Galveston County, Texas, together with all improvements thereon.
OWNERS/LIENHOLDERS
Brent A. Lovett, 311 Perkins
Avenue, League City, Texas 77573-2151
James A. and Beverly M. Lovett,
P.O. Box 686, Port O’Connor, Texas 77982
Lisa G. Tolman, Trustee, 322
East Main Street, Suite 108, League City, Texas 77573
Sears, Roebuck & Co., 45
Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970
Sears,
Roebuck & Co., c/o Jay Taylor, Jay A. Taylor, P.C., 3311 Richmond Avenue,
Suite 307, Houston, Texas 77098
VII.
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT
THE ABOVE NOTICE OF MEETING WAS POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD AT CITY HALL OF
THE CITY OF LEAGUE CITY, TEXAS, BY THE 2nd DAY OF JULY, 2015 BY 6 PM,
AND WAS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 551, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (THE TEXAS
OPEN MEETINGS ACT). ITEMS POSTED IN THE OPEN SESSION PORTIONS OF THIS AGENDA
MAY ALSO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED OR EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. THE BOARD RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HEAR
ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED AGENDA ITEMS THAT QUALIFY FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION,
IN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION BY PUBLICLY ANNOUNCING THE APPLICABLE SECTION NUMBER OF
THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, (CHAPTER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SPECIFICALLY
INCLUDING CHAPTER 551.071 “CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY”), THAT JUSTIFIES
EXECUTIVE SESSION TREATMENT.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE
PRESENCE OF A QUORUM OF THE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AT ANY TIME DURING THE
COURSE OF THE ABOVE-REFERENCED PROCEEDING MAY CONSTITUTE A MEETING OF CITY
COUNCIL PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, CHAPTER 551 OF THE TEXAS
GOVERNMENT CODE. BY THIS NOTICE, THE PUBLIC IS HEREBY ADVISED OF SAID MEETING
NOT LESS THAN 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE DATE, TIME AND LOCATION NOTED ABOVE.
__________________________________________
RICHARD WERBISKIS
CITY PLANNER
MINUTES
CITY OF LEAGUE CITY
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS/
BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION
THURSDAY, JULY 09, 2015 at 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
200 WEST WALKER STREET
*************************************************************
I.
Call to order and Roll
call of members
Mr.
Christiansen called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
Members
present:
Members absent:
James
R. Christiansen, Chair Michael
Hendershot, Vice-Chair
Katie
Benoit
Lianne
Russell
Tamra
Gann-Curry
Ed
Rainey marked present at 6:05p.m.
City
Representatives:
Richard
Werbiskis, AICP, Assistant Director P&D
Mark
Linenschmidt, AICP, CFM, Senior Planner
Matthew
Grooms, Planner
Michelle
Villarreal, Deputy City Attorney
Kris
Carpenter, Neighborhood Services Manager
II.
Approval of Minutes
A.
June 18, 2015
Ms.
Benoit motioned to approve the minutes of June 18, 2015.
Mr.
Christiansen asked for a vote.
The
motion passed by a vote of 5-0-0.
III.
Other Business
A.
Consider to take action to
excuse absences from the June 18, 2015 meeting.
Mr.
Linenschmidt, Senior Planner -- stated, that at the recommendation of the City
Attorney, staff has been requested to start accounting for the commissioners’
absences. He also explained that if a commissioner has more than three
consecutive unexcused absences or is absent for more than 51 percent of the
meetings in an annual period, it will be seen as a voluntary resignation from
their post.
Mr.
Christiansen asked for instructions on how to account for the absences.
Mr.
Linenschmidt replied that they only needed an explanation for the records, and
then the board could decide whether it’s excusable or not.
Mr.
Christiansen asked the two members absent last meeting, Mr. Rainey and Ms.
Russell, for their explanations.
Mr.
Rainey replied that he had a football booster meeting for his son that night,
and he sent an email explaining his absence.
Ms.
Russell replied that her grandson was admitted to the hospital, and she also sent
an email explaining her absence.
Mr.
Christiansen asked to whom the email was sent.
Ms.
Russell explained that it was sent to Mr. Linenschmidt.
Mr.
Christiansen asked if the other commissioners would like to discuss the
explanations given by Mr. Rainey and Ms. Russell.
Ms.
Benoit asked Mr. Linenschmidt if they
needed a motion.
Mr. Linenschmidt
explained that a motion would be staff’s preference.
Ms.
Benoit asked for a motion to excuse Mr. Rainey and Ms. Russell’s absences.
Mr.
Christiansen seconded the motion.
The
motion passed 3-0-0.
The Swearing in of
Speakers and Witnesses
Mr. Christiansen swore in the
witnesses, stating this is a quasi-judicial board, which is being recorded;
therefore, anybody who speaks should be aware it is considered testimony. Any
appeal of the decision by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or Building and Standards
Commission must be filed with the Court of Competent Jurisdiction within 10
days for the ZBA and 30 days for the Building and Standards Commission after
the date of the decision rendered by this board/commission, or such time period
as indicated by Section 216.014 Texas Local Government Code.
Public Hearings and Action
Items from Public Hearings (ZBA)
Hold a public hearing and
take action on a Zoning Board of Adjustments Application, ZBA15-04 (810 4th
Street), a request for a variance to the minimum side setback requirement for
properties located within the “RNC-HDC” (Residential Neighborhood Conservation
and Historic District Conservation) Overlay District (Section 125-81.E.) on
approximately 0.271 acres zoned “RSF-7-RNC-HDC” (Single Family Residential with
a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet with a Residential Neighborhood
Conservation and Historic District Conservation Overlay), legally described as
lots 9 & 10 of Block 22 of the League City Townsite, generally located east
of Kansas Avenue and west of Iowa Avenue with an approximate address of 810 4th
Street.
Matthew Grooms, Planner,
stated that the request is for a variance to the side setback requirement in
the Zoning District. The requirement is currently five feet for the side yard
setback, and the applicant is purposing to build a structure with a two-foot
side yard setback. A zoning map was shown.
Mr. Grooms explained the
background of the property, the uses of the adjacent properties, and described
the addresses notified of the public hearing. The applicant is proposing to
build an accessory structure, which will be a combination of a greenhouse and storage
shed, in their rear yard. Sixty-eight residents were notified, and no
objections have been received for this request.
An illustration of the
applicant’s site plan was shown.
Mr. Grooms explained that the
proposed structure is two feet from the western lot boundary, and the site was
chosen due to drainage issues on the opposite side of the rear area of the
applicant’s yard.
The following timeline is
given by Mr. Grooms:
May 28, 2015 – Construction
began on the property and the Code Compliance Division opened a case on the
project requesting all work be ceased until proper permits were acquired.
June 18, 2015 – The Historic
District Commission approved the Certificate of Appropriateness for this
project on the condition that a variance is granted for the side yard setback
requirement.
June 29, 2015 – 68 public
notices are mailed out and public signs posted on the subject property.
July 9, 2015 – Variance
request to be heard before the Zoning Board of Adjustments.
Two photos were presented
illustrating the proximity of the structure to the adjoining property.
Mr. Grooms explained that, of
the Variance Finding Form tests:
: The property fails to pass
the Public Interest test because it does not meet the five foot buffer
requirement, which was determined to be an interest of the public.
: The property passed the
Authorization for Contrary Use test because the specific project is permitted
in the district.
: The property fails to pass the
Injury to Adjacent Property test because the buffer requirement is not met and
there is potential for rain water to run off from the structure onto the
adjacent property.
: The property failed to pass
the Essential Character of the District test because the five foot setbacks are
deemed an essential character of the district.
: The property fails to pass
the Harmony with the Spirit and Intent of the Zoning Ordinances test because
the property does meet the setback requirements, and side yard setbacks are
important to meeting the intent of the zoning ordinances.
: The Plight of the Owner test
was considered in-applicable because the owner’s hardship was determined to be
self-induced, and thus not a plight.
: The property passes the
Integrity of the Zoning test because the project is a permitted use in the
zoning.
: The property fails to pass
the Health, Safety, and Public Welfare test because of the structures close
proximity to the adjacent property and the negative consequences that could
come from that, such as rain water runoff.
Mr. Grooms explained that the
City Staff’s recommendation is not to approve the variance because the
accessory structure does not meet the Zoning District guidelines and fails six
out of the eight tests.
Mr. Christiansen asked for
confirmation that the original structure was taken down and the new accessory
structure was being built on top.
Mr. Grooms confirmed this.
Mr. Christiansen asked if the
applicant started the project without the proper permits and approvals.
Mr. Grooms replied yes.
Mr. Rainey asked if there was
anything other than rain water that would be adverse to the adjacent property.
Mr. Grooms explained that
nothing else could be identified.
Mr. Rainey asked how rain
water affected the Health, Safety, and Welfare of the public.
Mr. Grooms explained that the
roofline of the structure is even with the fence line, so runoff water is the
main issue, but other issues could arise.
Mr. Rainey asked about the
positive affects the additional rainwater of would have on the adjacent property’s
yard.
Mr. Grooms admitted that it
could be possible.
Mr. Rainey asked if the
Zoning District guidelines came into effect after the original structure, which
did not meet the guidelines, had already been built.
Mr. Grooms explained that the
original structure was built under different Zoning District guidelines, but
once the new structure was built it fell under the current Zoning District
guidelines.
Mr. Rainey asked if changing
the design of the roof would make the structure conforming to the guidelines,
and change the City Staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Grooms explained that the
applicant has spoken about doing this, but the City Staff’s recommendation
would remain the same because the side yard setback is still not met.
Mr. Rainey asked whether the decision
had anything to do with fire hazards.
Mr. Grooms stated that it
does not.
Ms. Benoit asked if the
structure was being built exactly where another structure once stood.
Mr. Grooms stated that was
correct.
Ms. Benoit commented that she
did not hear that information at the Historic Commission meeting.
Mr. Grooms explained that the
applicant used the existing pad for the new structure.
Ms. Benoit commented that the
Historic Commission does not regulate setback, but focuses on the architectural
features, and that the Certificate of Appropriateness was given because the
commission does not regulate non-architectural features, such as zoning.
Mr. Grooms stated that the
Historic Commission did not want to deny the project based on the setbacks
because the project did meet all other zoning requirements, but only approved
the certificate with the condition that the Board grants a variance for the
project.
Ms. Benoit asked if there was
a gutter on the backside of the structure.
Mr. Grooms stated that the applicant
spoke about installing one.
Ms. Benoit commented that there
are numerous accessory structures in the district that are nonconforming, and
if a property owner takes one down, they have to rebuild it conforming to
current regulations.
Ms. Gann-Curry asked for the
date of when the old structure was taken down.
Mr. Grooms stated that was a
question only the applicant could answer.
Richard Werbiskis, Assistant
Director of Planning and Development, commented that there was no permit issued
for the demolition of the old structure, which is generally required before the
removal of a structure.
Mr. Werbiskis also stated
that zoning ordinances dictate that when a nonconforming structure is replaced,
the new structure must be conforming to all zoning requirements, unless a
variance is issued by the commission.
Mr. Christiansen asked the
applicant or his or her representative to address the commission.
Toby Hall, 810 4th
Street, stated that the original shed was built 23 years ago, in the same location
of where the new shed will be built, the structure has yet to flood the
adjacent property, and she owns the other four lots adjacent to her property,
on the east side.
Ms. Hall explained that the
original shed was removed due to a bee infestation, and that the new structure
was to replace the old one, while updating the features to match the house. She
also stated that she would have no issue installing gutters in the back.
Mr. Christiansen asked for a
date of when the old structure was taken down, and if the structure was a
safety hazard.
Ms. Hall stated that the
structure was deteriorated and that the bees prevented her from entering her
yard.
Mr. Christiansen asked why a
permit was never acquired for the removal and building of a structure.
Ms. Hall stated that she did
not know she needed a permit to replace an existing structure.
Ms. Hall commented that the
walkway area would be composed of crushed granite and flagstone and the bottom
of the shed is composed of it, which will allow the water to drain better.
Mr. Christiansen asked if she
tried to apply for a permit.
Ms. Hall answered that she
did.
Ms. Russell asked Ms. Hall is
she had been in contact with any of her neighbors.
Ms. Hall stated that some of
her neighbors were at the hearing, but she had not communicated with the
neighbor at the adjacent property.
Mr. Christiansen opened
the public hearing at 6:35 p.m.
Mike Peterson, 720 2nd
Street, spoke in favor of Ms. Hall’s accessory structure and commented on the beauty
of Ms. Hall’s home and structure.
Janine Henderson, 720 3rd
Street, spoke in favor of Ms. Hall’s accessory structure and commented that the
structure would be a welcomed addition to the Historic District.
Mr. Christiansen asked Ms.
Henderson if her opinion was the general consensus of the neighborhood, and her
opinion on the non-conformity of the accessory structure.
Ms. Henderson stated that the
original structure never flooded the neighbor’s property, and that Ms. Hall
would ensure that the adjourning properties were not flooded.
Ms. Henderson asked the
commissioners if their only concern was flooding.
Mr. Christensen responded
that fire hazards were also a concern.
Ms. Henderson stated that she
believed Ms. Hall would comply with all regulations.
Mr. Christiansen closed
the public hearing at 6:39 p.m.
Mr. Christiansen stated that
Ms. Gann-Curry had not been activated because they had a quorum without her
vote, and he asked the commissioners if they would like to discuss the matter
prior to voting or after.
Mr. Rainey stated that either
option was acceptable.
Ms. Benoit commented that she
lived in the area and that she did receive a public hearing notice, and she
also stated, that a frequent question neighbors had was who receives a variance
and who does not.
Ms. Benoit commented that the
commissioners follow specific guidelines and criteria on who can and who cannot
receive a variance, and have little leeway.
Mr. Rainey responded that the
commissioners also add a human element, and can use common sense, as opposed to
a computer. As an example, Mr. Rainey stated that the accessory structure
would be in the interest of the public, because it would enhance the overall
look of the neighborhood.
Ms. Benoit responded that the
commissioners are dealing with sign variances, and those in favor of the signs
claimed that the signs would improve the area; however, the overall appeal of
the signs was not a criteria used for rendering a decision.
Ms. Russell responded that
the decision on the signs was difficult because the signs would have been an
improvement; however, a key factor in the decision was that the sign was for a
commercial business and would have been displayed in a highly visible area.
Ms. Russell stated that the
circumstances for this current situation are different than the circumstances
of the sign variances and she agreed with Mr. Rainey’s comments.
Mr. Rainey also stated that
the signs had changed dimensions, but this structure would remain the same.
Ms. Benoit responded that the
structure was not in the same location, and that neighbors on the side were
concerned about the structure, although they were not present at the hearing.
Mr. Rainey stated that it was
not appropriate to use evidence not presented at the hearing to render a
decision.
Ms. Benoit asked Mr. Rainey
if she should ask the questions so that City Staff could answer them.
Mr. Rainey stated that the City
staff had an opportunity to present their evidence, and new evidence would have
to be brought up by the City. He also stated that commissioners have to use the
evidence presented at the hearing because there would be a burden of having to
gather evidence and witnesses, which may also lead to recusals.
Ms. Benoit commented that she
may have to call for a recusal of herself because she knows information that
has not been presented.
Ms. Russell asked if Ms.
Benoit’s recusal would cause them to not have a quorum.
Ms. Benoit responded that Ms.
Gann-Curry was there.
Ms. Benoit motioned to recuse
herself.
Mr. Rainey seconded the
motion.
The motion passed 6-0-0.
Mr. Christiansen activated
Ms. Gann-Curry.
Mr. Christiansen asked Mr. Linenschmidt
if he could speak to the City attorney.
Michelle Villarreal, Deputy
City Attorney, introduced herself.
Mr. Christensen asked Ms.
Villarreal if voting for a variance would set a precedent for similar issues.
Ms. Villarreal responded that
it would not set a precedent, and that decisions are made case-by-case.
Mr. Christensen asked whether
variances would be specific to the particular location.
Ms. Villarreal responded yes.
Ms. Gann-Curry commented that
she too agreed with Mr. Rainey’s comments.
Ms. Russell asked the City
the reasoning to why the accessory structure failed to pass the “Essential
Character of the District” test.
Mr. Grooms responded that the
zoning ordinances list the characteristics that provide the atmosphere and echo
the intent of the district, and because the accessory structure does not follow
the zoning ordinance, it fails to pass the test.
Ms. Russell asked if one
issue, such as the setback, could cause a structure to fail the test.
Mr. Grooms responded yes.
Mr. Christiansen asked
whether the accessory structure that is being built qualifies as
self-inflicted.
Mr. Rainey stated that he
understood why the original structure was taken down, because of bees and its
dilapidated appearance, and why the applicant chose to reuse the original area
that is located in the setback, because of economic reasons, and stated that
the City has only offered drainage issues and the neighborhood's overall
appearance to justify their decision.
Mr. Rainey also stated that
the neighbor did not feel the issue was pressing enough to attend the hearing,
the drainage issues can easily be dealt with, and the overall appearance of the
neighborhood would be improved by the structure and prevent negative
externalities.
Mr. Christiansen asked Mr.
Rainey if he believed that the bees and the dilapidated condition of the
original structure constituted a unique circumstance.
Mr. Rainey responded yes.
Mr. Werbiskis commented to
commissioners that local government code gives an eight part test to weigh each
application based on law, so that decisions are not arbitrary.
Ms. Russell asked Ms. Hall if
there would electricity in the structure.
Ms. Hall responded no, the
structure is to be used as a greenhouse, and would not contain fire producing
objects.
Ms. Russell asked if the
structure would have a fire extinguisher.
Ms. Hall responded that the
structure is next to her home.
Mr. Rainey asked whether the
structure would overhang into the adjacent property.
Ms. Hall responded that the
structure is taller but right at the fence, and stated there was no other place
on the property to place the structure.
Mr. Rainey asked Ms. Hall if
she understood that if a part of the structure did enter into the neighbor's
property the neighbor would have the right to remove that part of the
structure.
Ms. Hall responded that she
did understand, and she commented on the neighbor's tree being a nuisance.
The commissioners reviewed
the eight part criteria and rendered the following votes:
Test #1 – True –
4
False – 0
Test #2 – True – 4
False – 0
Test #3 – True – 4
False
– 0
Test #4 – True – 4
False
– 0
Test #5 – True – 4
False
– 0
Test #6 – True – 4
False
– 0
Test #7 – True – 4
False
– 0
Test #8 – True – 4
False – 0
Mr. Christiansen commented
that all items of the eight part criteria were unanimously voted true by the
commissioners.
Ms. Russell motioned to
approve the variance.
Ms. Gann-Curry seconded the
motion.
The motion passed 4-0-0.
Mr. Christiansen asked for a
vote to approve the variance.
The variance was approved
unanimously.
Mr. Christiansen commented
that if the applicant is pulling a permit, the City will inspect the structure
to ensure it follows current regulations.
Mr. Christiansen asked if a
notary was required.
Mr. Linenschmidt responded
that no notary was required, and that notaries were only required for dangerous
structures.
Public Hearings and Action
Items from Public Hearings (BASC)
Hold a public compliance hearing
with possible action on BASC15-01 (311 Perkins Ave.), to determine whether a
building or structure is a dangerous building, to show cause why the ordered
action has not been completed and/or why civil penalties should not be assessed,
and issue any order(s) determined necessary to address such conditions per
22-331 et. seq. of the League City Code of Ordinances on property located at 331
Perkins Avenue, League City, Texas 77573, legally described as Lots one (1) and
two (2), Block one (1) of Merchant’s Addition Subdivision, a subdivision in
League City, Galveston County, Texas, according to the map thereof recorded in
Volume 238, Page 12 in the Office of the County Clerk of Galveston County,
Texas, together with all improvements thereon.
OWNERS/LIENHOLDERS/OTHER
PARTIES
Brent A. Lovett, 311 Perkins
Avenue, League City, Texas 77573-2151
James A. and Beverly M.
Lovett, P.O. Box 686, Port O’Connor, Texas 77982
Lisa G. Tolman, Trustee, 322
East Main Street, Suite 108, League City, Texas 77573
Sears, Roebuck & Co., 45
Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970
Sears, Roebuck & Co., c/o
Jay Taylor, Jay A. Taylor, P.C., 3311 Richmond Avenue, Suite 307, Houston,
Texas 77098
Kris Carpenter, Neighborhood
Services Manager, stated that commissioners found items 1,2, 3,4,5,6,10, and 11
were existing on the property and ordered the owners to provide a status
report at the current meeting, as well as provided documented proof of his
progress to City staff a week prior to the meeting.
Mr. Carpenter stated that the
applicant provided documented proof of a $7,000 down payment for a new mobile
home structure, the applicant also provided a contract which included the
removal of the old property, and the property owner is making progress on the
structure. However, the owner has not given a timeline for when the structure
will be removed.
Mr. Christiansen asked for
the applicant to address the commission.
Brent Lovett, 311 Perkins
Avenue, introduced himself.
Mr. Christiansen asked for
Mr. Lovett to detail his progress in purchasing a new mobile home.
Mr. Lovett stated that the
new mobile home would arrive sometime in August.
Mr. Christiansen asked if the
new mobile home had been made.
Mr. Lovett responded that it
was being made.
Mr. Christiansen asked if
they give 90 to 180 days to build the mobile home.
Mr. Lovett responded that he
called the contractors and they told him that it would be completed in August.
Mr. Christiansen asked Mr. Lovett
if he was aware of any electrical, plumbing, or structural issues he may have
in replacing the old mobile home with the new one.
Mr. Lovett responded that if
issues arose he would get a permit and have contractors fix the issues, and he
stated that he attempted to get a permit last week, but was unsuccessful.
Mr. Lovett asked how long a
permit was good for.
Mr. Carpenter responded that
he contacted Planning to inquire if Mr. Lovett could acquire a permit for the
new mobile home, and that he contacted the building department and stated that
he approved of Mr. Lovett receiving a permit.
Ms. Benoit commented that Mr.
Lovett was concerned about how long the permit would last.
Mr. Lovett agreed with Ms.
Benoit.
Mr. Carpenter stated that he
believed that permits were good for a year, but have to look into finding a
definite answer.
Ms. Benoit asked if the City
would let Mr. Lovett know.
Mr. Lovett stated that it was
in the contract to have the old mobile home removed.
Mr. Rainey asked the City if
Mr. Lovett has substantially complied with their request.
Mr. Carpenter responded that
Mr. Lovett is progressing toward compliance, but the removal of the old
structure is a concern because the structure is dangerous, and thus the city
would prefer for the structure to be removed as soon as possible.
Ms. Russell asked the City
who was in control of the timeline.
Mr. Carpenter responded that
the commissioners were in control of the timeline.
Ms. Benoit asked Mr. Lovett
if the beginning of September was a reasonable timeframe to have the old mobile
home replaced with the new one.
Mr. Lovett responded that he
hoped so.
Mr. Christiansen asked if Mr.
Lovett was still living in the old mobile home.
Mr. Lovett responded yes.
Mr. Rainey asked the City for
the timeframe they would like to see the old mobile home removed.
Mr. Werbiskis responded that
the City would prefer for the old mobile home to be removed by the 1st
of September.
Mr. Carpenter asked for a set
date, so that the City knows when they can remove the structure, and agreed
that September first would be preferable.
Mr. Rainey asked Mr. Lovett
his opinion on setting the removal date to September 1st.
Mr. Lovett stated that he was
concerned about the time constraint for having the new structure replace the
old structure after the old structure has been removed and the possible
consequences to having the old structure removed too soon.
Ms. Benoit asked if another
compliance hearing could be done September 1, 2015.
Mr. Werbiskis stated that the
City would prefer for the compliance hearing to be continued at the August
meeting, so that the issue is not perpetuated past September 1st.
Ms. Benoit asked for the
amount of hearings the commissioners are allowed to have.
Mr. Carpenter stated that he
did not believe there was a limit.
Ms. Benoit asked if it was
possible to have a hearing once a month until the issue is resolved.
Mr. Carpenter stated that the
City and Mr. Lovett should have an exact date at the August hearing.
Ms. Benoit asked Mr. Lovett
if he could attend the August meeting and inform the commissioners on any
updates.
Mr. Lovett stated that he
would.
Mr. Christiansen asked if
there were any further questions.
Mr. Christiansen stated that
he already opened a public hearing at the previous meeting on the property and
stated that he would not be opening a public hearing at this meeting.
The commissioners reviewed
the compliance orders and rendered the following decisions:
Item D was marked other,
noting that the hearing was reset to the August meeting and that the owner has
provided documentation of progress and secured a new mobile home.
“See Prior Order” Item was
marked.
Item 9 was marked and the
owner was asked to appear at the August 6, 2015 meeting, and to give the City
three days before the meeting.
Mr. Christiansen asked for a
motion to vote on the compliance order for the continuance of the compliance
order.
Mr. Rainey motioned for a
vote on the compliance order to continue the compliance order.
Ms. Benoit seconded motion.
The motion passed 5-0-0.
Mr. Christiansen commented
that the City should have a notary at the meetings for the convenience of the
applicants, the commissioners, and the City.
Adjournment
Mr. Christiansen asked for a
motion to adjourn the meeting.
Ms. Russell made a motion to
adjourn.
Mr. Russell seconded the
motion.
The motion passed unanimously
with a vote of 5-0-0.
Mr. Christiansen adjourned
the meeting at 7:30 PM.
CERTIFICATE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE NOTICE OF MEETING WAS
POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD AT CITY HALL OF THE CITY OF LEAGUE CITY, TEXAS, BY
THE 15th DAY OF MAY, 2015 BY 6 PM, AND WAS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CHAPTER 551, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT). ITEMS POSTED
IN THE OPEN SESSION PORTIONS OF THIS AGENDA MAY ALSO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED OR
EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS
ACT. THE BOARD RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HEAR ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED AGENDA
ITEMS THAT QUALIFY FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION BY PUBLICLY
ANNOUNCING THE APPLICABLE SECTION NUMBER OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, (CHAPTER 551
OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING CHAPTER 551.071
“CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY”), THAT JUSTIFIES EXECUTIVE SESSION TREATMENT.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM OF
THE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AT ANY TIME DURING THE COURSE OF THE
ABOVE-REFERENCED PROCEEDING MAY CONSTITUTE A MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT
TO THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, CHAPTER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. BY
THIS NOTICE, THE PUBLIC IS HEREBY ADVISED OF SAID MEETING NOT LESS THAN 72
HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE DATE, TIME AND LOCATION NOTED ABOVE.
___________________________________
______________________________
Richard Werbiskis
James R. Christiansen,
Assistant Director of
Planning & Development Chairperson, Zoning Board of
Adjustment/
Building and Standards Commission