HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-7-19 BAminutes
* M I N U T E S *
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
November 7, 2019
City Hall, 801 Main Street
A Meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on November 7, 2019 and called to order at 3:02 p.m.
with the following members present:
Chairman Dana Timaeus
Board Member Jeff Beaver
Board Member Joey Hilliard
Alternate Board Member Tom Rowe
Alternate Board Member Lee Smith
Board Members absent: Board Member Christy Amuny
Also present: Adina Josey, Senior Planner; Fran Malvo, Recording Secretary,
Tyrone Cooper, City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board Member Jeff Beaver made a motion to approve the minutes for September 5, 2019.
Alternate Board Member Smith seconded the motion. Motion to approve the minutes carried
5:0.
SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES
PUBLIC HEARING
1) File 744-BA: Consider a request to allow Variances to the minimum front setback from 25 feet
to 9 feet and to the minimum rear setback from 25 feet to 9.8 feet.
Applicant: Stacey Martinez of Tegrity Homes
Location: 3024 Grand Street
Mrs. Josey presented the staff report. Stacey Martinez of Tegrity Homes is requesting Variances to the
front and rear setbacks for the property located at 3024 Grand Street. Due to damage from Hurricane
Harvey, the structure is being replaced. The lot is much wider than it is deep. The new structure is
going to be built in the same position as the previous one, but will not meet the required front yard
setback of 25’ or the required rear yard setback of 25’. The previous structure was grandfathered due
to its age.
The applicant shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that all three conditions necessary for
approval have been met:
A. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest;
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
November 7, 2019
B. That literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship because of
exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape topography or other extraordinary or exceptional
physical situation or hardship physical condition 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 owner’s actions; and
C. That by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and
substantial justice will be done.
Slides of the subject property were shown. Twenty-two (22) notices were mailed within 200 feet of the
subject property. One response was received in favor and no responses were received in opposition. A
brief discussion followed regarding the depth and size of the lot. Ronnie Blume, Director of Tegrity
Homes, addressed the board. Mr. Blume stated that they currently have eleven (11) plans approved by
the General Land Office (GLO). Discussion followed regarding the carport. The homeowner, Ruth
Trahan, 3024 Grand Street, addressed the board. Ms. Trahan stated that she needs a new home because
her current home is not in very good shape. She added that she would like to keep the carport. No
further discussion or other questions. Alternate Board Member Smith made a motion to approve the
Variances to the minimum front setback from 25 feet to 9 feet to the minimum rear setback from 25
fee to 9.8 feet as requested for File 744-BA. Board Member Hilliard seconded the motion. Motion to
approve carried 5:0.
2) File 745-BA: Consider a request to allow a Variance to the front minimum setback from 25 feet
to 5 feet.
Applicant: Wayne Sheffield
Location: 7750 Chelsea Place
Mrs. Josey presented the staff report. Wayne Sheffield would like to construct a carport in the
front yard of his home located at 7750 Chelsea Place. The applicant is requesting a Variance to be able
to build the carport approximately 5’ from his front property line. The applicant’s home currently has
a garage. The Ordinance states in Chapter 28 Zoning, Area and Height Regulations:
“(c) Area and height exceptions. 13) Where an existing residential structure does not contain a
garage or carport and where there is not adequate area for an accessible parking space behind the
front yard area, a carport having no side walls may be constructed in the front yard area.”
The applicant shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that all three conditions necessary for
approval have been met:
A. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest;
B. That literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship because of
exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape topography or other extraordinary or exceptional
physical situation or hardship physical condition unique to the specific piece of property in
question. “Unnecessary hardship” shall mean physical hardship relating to the property itself
2
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
November 7, 2019
as distinguished from a hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations or caprice,
and the hardship must not result from the applicant or owner’s actions; and
C. That by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and
substantial justice will be done.
Slides of the subject property were shown. Twenty-one (21) notices were mailed to property owners
within 200 feet of the subject property. Four (4) responses were received in favor and no responses
were received in opposition. Mrs. Josey stated that the applicant is requesting five (5) feet from the
property line to add on a carport to his residence. A brief discussion followed regarding the length of
the setback. The applicant was present. Wayne Sheffield, 7750 Chelsea Place, addressed the board. He
stated that he drives a van and it will not fit in his garage. Discussion followed between Mr. Sheffield
and the board regarding the carport. No further discussion or questions. Alternate Board Member
Smith made a motion to approve the request for a Variance to the front minimum setback from 25 feet
to 5 feet as requested for File 745-BA. Board Member Hilliard seconded the motion. Motion to
approve carried 5:0.
3) File 746-BA: Consider a request allowing a Variance to the 6-foot-wide perimeter landscaping
and islands/peninsulas required for off-street parking.
Applicant: Mohammed Issa
Location: 620/670 North Martin Luther King Parkway
Mrs. Josey presented the staff report. Mohammed Issa is requesting a Variance to the landscaping
requirements for 620 & 670 Martin Luther King, Jr. Pkwy. In April, 2019, a Stop Work Order was
issued for work being done inside the building without permits. A permit was issued thereafter for that
work only. In May, 2019, the applicant applied for and received a permit to “pour concrete over
existing asphalt parking lot” at 620 Martin Luther King, Jr. Pky. Planning and Zoning does not
approve or sign off on resurfacing only, when parking the lot is existing and no additional parking
spaces are to be added. Subsequently, the applicant purchased the adjacent lots and proceeded to pour
a new parking lot without permits. In Chapter 28, Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 28.04.006 Landscaping
and screening requirements, states the following, “(3) An increase in the size of an existing parking lot
by twenty-five (25) percent in the number of parking spaces or more shall require the entire parking
lot, in addition to the twenty-five (25) percent expansion, to be brought into compliance with this
section.” A Stop Work Order was issued in August, 2019, for pouring the parking lot without permits
or inspections. It was at this time that the Planning and Zoning Department met with Mr. Issa to
discuss the requirements for the landscaping according to the Ordinance. Mr. Issa is applying for relief
from the landscaping requirements through the variance process. Listed below are the conditions
which must be met in order to grant a variance request, calling attention to (B).
The applicant shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that all three conditions necessary for
approval have been met:
(3) To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of this chapter as will
not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the
provisions of said laws will result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of the chapter shall be
observed and substantial justice done. The term “variance” shall mean a deviation from the literal
3
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
November 7, 2019
provisions of the zoning ordinance which is granted by the board when strict conformity to the zoning
ordinance would cause an unnecessary hardship because of circumstances unique to the property on
which the variance is granted. Except as otherwise prohibited under subsection (j) \[(f)\] hereof, the
board is empowered to authorize a variance from a requirement of the zoning ordinance when the
board finds that all of the following conditions have been met:
(A) That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest; and
(B) 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 or
physical condition unique to the specific piece of property in question.
“Unnecessary handicap \[hardship\]” 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’s or property owner’s own actions; and
(C) That by granting the variance, the spirit of the chapter will be observed and substantial justice
will be done.
Slides of the subject property were shown. Discussion followed regarding landscaping and parking lot
for the subject property. Mrs. Josey stated that concrete was poured over the entire lot without any
permits. She added that a copy of the survey was included in the packet. There was no landscaping
shown on the survey. Mrs. Josey passed around photos of car lots in the area. Mrs. Josey stated that
there are two suites, Suite A and Suite B and she felt that the Stop Work Order was issued for Suite B.
Inspections were also done for Suite B. Discussion followed regarding concrete overlay over asphalt
on the parking lot. Mr. Beaver asked if landscaping was required. Mrs. Josey stated that landscaping is
th
required. The applicant was present. Mohammed Issa, 2903 19 St, Port Arthur, Texas, addressed the
board. Mr. Issa stated that no CO (Certificate of Occupancy) was issued to him. He also explained in
detail to the board the dilemma he faced regarding the two buildings. Mr. Issa stated he wanted to
bring business to the area. Discussion followed between Mr. Issa and the board. Eighteen (18) notices
were mailed to property owners within 200 feet of the subject property. One response was received in
favor and five responses were received in opposition. Mr. Issa poured the concrete before he obtained a
permit from the Building Codes department. He stated that it was a misunderstanding from the
Engineering department. Board Member Rowe stated that the Engineering department does not address
landscaping issues. More discussion followed. Shawn Javed, 2290 Avalon, addressed the board. Mr.
Javed spoke in favor of the request. The board held a discussion amongst themselves. Board member
Rowe made a motion to deny the request allowing a Variance to the 6 foot wide perimeter landscaping
and island/peninsulas required for off-street parking as requested for File 746-BA. Board Member
Hilliard seconded the motion. Motion to deny the request carried 5:0.
4) File 748-BA: Consider a request allowing a Variance to the rear minimum setback from 25 feet
to 6 feet.
Applicant: Willie Carrierre
Location: 4240 Inez Street
4
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
November 7, 2019
Mrs. Josey presented the staff report. Willie Carrierre is requesting a Variance to the rear setback for
the property located at 4240 Inez Street. The applicant is the homeowner and is applying for the
variance in order to add a two-car garage to the back of his residence. The proposed addition is 52 feet
long and will actually be built higher than the original structure to prevent water from sitting on the
property. Mr. Carrierre’s property backs up to a railroad track to the west, therefore an easement exists
in the rear yard approximately 50 feet beyond said property line.
The applicant shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that all three conditions necessary for
approval have been met:
A. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest;
B. That literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship because of
exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape topography or other extraordinary or exceptional
physical situation or hardship physical condition 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 owner’s actions; and
C. That by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and
substantial justice will be done.
Slides of the subject property were shown. Twenty-three (23) notices were mailed to property owners
within 200 feet of the subject property. No responses were received in favor and no responses were
received in opposition. The applicant was present. Willie Carrierre, 4240 Inez, addressed the board
members. Mr. Carrierre passed a photo around to the board. He stated he wishes to make his home his
retirement home. He added that he elevated his backyard to eliminate any standing water. A brief
discussion followed regarding ditch and vegetation property line. Alvin Husband, concrete contractor
for the applicant, addressed the board. Mr. Husband explained to the board what he intends to do to the
residence. A brief discussion followed. No further discussion or questions. Board Member Beaver
made a motion to approve the request to allow a Variance to the minimum rear setback from 25 feet to
6 feet as requested for File 748-BA. Board Member Smith seconded the motion. Motion to approve
carried 5:0.
5) File 749-BA: Consider a request to allow a Variance to the front minimum rear setback from 25
feet to 15 feet.
Applicant: Ashraf El Houbi
Location: 10 Stonebrook Court
Mrs. Josey presented the staff report. Ashraf El Houbi is requesting a Variance to the rear setback for
the property located at 10 Stonebrook Court. The property is zoned RM-H (Residential Multiple
Family Dwelling - Highest Density) and therefore requires a 25 foot rear setback. The applicant is the
homeowner and is applying for the variance in order to fit a new construction home on the lot.
5
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
November 7, 2019
The applicant shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that all three conditions necessary for
approval have been met:
A. That the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest;
B. That literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship because of
exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape topography or other extraordinary or exceptional
physical situation or hardship physical condition 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 owner’s actions; and
C. That by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and
substantial justice will be done.
Slides of the subject property were shown. Fifteen (15) notices were mailed within 200 feet of the
subject property. No responses were received in favor or in opposition. The applicant was present.
Ashraf El Houbi, 4720 Fieldwood Lane, stated that he needs a bigger residence to suit his family size.
He added that this is the reason that he is asking for the Variance. No questions or discussion. Board
Member Hilliard made a motion to approve the request to allow a Variance to the minimum rear
setback from 25 feet to 15 feet as requested for File 749-BA. Board Member Smith seconded the
motion. Motion to approve carried 5:0.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT
4:31 p.m.
6