Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-3-21 BA Minutes * M I N U T E S * BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 3, 2021 City Hall, 801 Main Street A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on June 3, 2021 and called to order at 3:04 p.m. with the following members present: Chairman Dana Timaeus Board Member Jeff Beaver Board Member Joey Hilliard Board Member Tom Rowe Board Members absent: Board Member Lee Smith Alternate Board Member Christy Amuny Also present: Demi Laney, Senior Planner Thomas Duesler, Senior Assistant City Attorney Catherine Allen, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Member Hilliard moved to approve the minutes for May 6, 2021. Board Member Beaver seconded the motion. The motion to approve the minutes carried 4:0. Chairman Timaeus informed the applicants that with only four (4) members present, an approval would require a unanimous vote. He explained the applicants’ options of continuing the meeting with the members present or postponing to a future meeting. The applicants chose to continue with the meeting. SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES All witnesses were sworn in at 3:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING 1) File PZ2021-139: To consider a request for a Variance to the required minimum front and rear yard setbacks for a main structure to be reduced from 25’ to 3.5’ and minimum pavement setback to be reduced from 2’ to 0’ in an RCR (Residential Conservation Revitalization) District. Applicant: Lemoine Disaster Recovery Location: 1475 Wall Street Ms. Laney presented the staff report. Lemoine Disaster Recovery is requesting a variance for the property located at 1475 Wall Street. The property is zoned Residential Conservation Revitalization BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 3, 2021 (RCR) and therefore requires a 25’ building setback from the front property line for a main structure. The applicant is requesting a variance to the front yard setback to be reduced from 25’ to 3.5’. Additionally, they are requesting a variance to the minimum pavement setback to be reduced from 2’ to 0’. Lemoine Disaster Recovery is a Louisiana-based company. They have participated in the General Land Office (GLO) Disaster Recovery Program to facilitate building structurally sound homes and mitigate future flooding hazards for citizens’ homes that have been affected by natural disasters. 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, site plan, and surrounding area were shown. Twenty (20) notices were mailed to property owners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property. No responses were received in favor or opposition. Chairman Timaeus inquired about the driveway and parking pad. Ms. Laney clarified the placement of the driveway and stated that the GLO requires an ADA lift if the space cannot fit a ramp. Discussion followed concerning the placement of the property line, the fence and the sidewalk. Board Member Beaver asked if the existing home is further back than the planned construction or not and Ms. Laney stated that it should be about the same. Board Member Hilliard inquired about the pitch of the covered porch and Ms. Laney replied that the covered porch should be aligned with the roof. The applicant, Alexandra Pallis, Project Coordinator for Lemoine Disaster Recovery, 12563 Gulf Freeway Houston, TX, addressed the board. She stated that the new house will keep the same footprint of the original house and that the parking pad will not be over the property line. 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 3, 2021 Board Member Rowe asked the applicant if she had a floor plan and Ms. Pallis provided a floor plan to the Board. Chairman Timaeus asked about the GLO rules for the ADA lift and Ms. Pallis stated that the lift is required by the GLO and that they do not usually allow smaller than what is proposed. Discussion followed concerning the dimensions and scale of the plan. Ms. Pallis provided a survey to the Board. Brief discussion followed concerning the location of any utility easements. Board Member Beaver moved to approve the request allowing a Variance to the required minimum front and rear yard setbacks for a main structure to be reduced from 25’ to 3.5’ and minimum pavement setback to be reduced from 2’ to 0’ in an RCR (Residential Conservation Revitalization) District, as requested in File PZ2021-139. Board Member Hilliard seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. Chairman Timaeus-Aye, Board Member Beaver-Aye, Board Member Hilliard-Aye, Board Member Rowe-Aye. The motion to approve carried 4:0. 2) File PZ2021-150: To consider a request for a Variance to the required minimum front yard setback for a main structure to be reduced from 25’ to 21.62’ in an R-S (Residential Single- Family) District. Applicant: Akram Khalil Location: 3890 Holland Ms. Laney presented the staff report. Akram Khalil is requesting a variance for the property located at 3890 Holland Drive. The property is zoned Residential Single-Family (R-S) and therefore requires a 25’ building setback from the front property line for a main structure. The applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum front yard setback from the front property line for a main structure to be reduced from 25’ to 21.62’. This house has been constructed without the benefit of an approved site plan that accurately displays the setback dimensions. Mr. Khalil originally submitted drawings for an addition to the home and was issued a permit. City inspectors posted a stop work order when they realized the contractors were demolishing the existing structure and constructing a new house. Mr. Khalil has been taking the necessary steps to resolve this situation to come into compliance since the stop work order was posted. He was required to produce an elevation certificate because the new construction was located in the AE floodplain. He also had to produce building plans to reflect the new construction; both have been approved except the site plan. 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 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 3, 2021 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 property, site plan and surrounding area were shown. Twenty (20) notices were mailed to property owners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property. Two (2) responses were received in favor and zero were received in opposition. Ms. Laney summarized the letters in favor, which stated that the home will improve the neighborhood. Board Member Rowe asked if the fence was new or existing and Ms. Laney replied that it was existing. Discussion followed concerning the placement of the fence and ordinances concerning fences. Ms. Laney clarified the setback rules. Board Member Rowe asked if the original slab was extended and Ms. Laney confirmed this to be the case, adding that a structural engineer will be needed for approval. Chairman Timaeus stated that the Board’s role will only be concerning the setback. Ms. Laney reviewed the setback rules on each street frontage and how the ordinance defines the front setback by the platting and the smallest street frontage, regardless of how the house is positioned. The applicant, Akram Khalil, PO Box 283 Beaumont TX, addressed the Board. He stated that this house flooded in Tropical Storm Imelda and that the owner is displaced while they are trying to fix the home. He stated that upon beginning the repair, they discovered that the damage was so extensive that the house needed to be rebuilt. He stated that the original plans were approved, but that they later discovered more damage and began demolition, which resulted in the home being red tagged. He added that the foundation was expanded and that an engineer is working on reinforcing it and will come to the City after the variance is decided. He stated that the home is not encroaching on any other property. He stated that the mistake had come from a subcontractor. Board Member Rowe asked if the setback dimensions were checked before adding the addition. The applicant stated that at first it was just a remodel and looked good and was not sure how it was missed. Chairman Timaeus asked if he was sure all of the measurements were accurate and the applicant confirmed them to be accurate. Mr. Khalil stated that the oversight was on all the parties involved, that the changes will enhance the house and that if the variance is denied they will have to tear down the house. He added that it has been exposed to the elements while waiting to complete this process and that the homeowner would really like to get back into the house. 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 3, 2021 Chairman Timaeus asked about the home being in the flood plain, if an elevation certificate was provided and if the home was elevated. The applicant stated that an elevation certificate was provided, but the home owner did not want to add additional expense to raise the home. Ms. Laney provided the original site plan and the elevation certificate to the Board. Board Member Rowe asked about when the site plan was submitted and Ms. Laney stated that it was provided after the new construction was discovered. Board Member Rowe asked the applicant why the corner clip on the site plan was not followed. Mr. Khalil replied that it was overlooked. Ms. Laney stated that City staff caught the encroachment. Chairman Timaeus asked when the bonus room was added, because it was not on the original site plan. The applicant stated that he did not remember. Mr. Khalil explained what the finished home would look like and stated that it will be a very nice home for the neighborhood. Brief discussion followed concerning the placement of the front door and the sidewalk. Discussion between the Board members followed concerning how to handle the situation. Board Member Rowe moved to approve the request allowing a Variance to the required minimum front yard setback for a main structure to be reduced from 25’ to 21.62’ in an R-S (Residential Single- Family) District, as requested in File PZ2021-150. Board Member Hilliard seconded the motion. Board Member Rowe stated to the applicant that he hoped never to see him before the Board with anything similar again. He stated that it is the applicant’s responsibility to make sure things are done correctly and not put the homeowner through this. Chairman Timaeus added that too many times applicants have already done something wrong and come before the Board to ask forgiveness, which puts the Board Members in a difficult situation. He added that it is the homeowner who is hurt by this and at times the Board does vote to require them to tear down the house and fix the problem. A roll call vote was taken. Chairman Timaeus-Aye, Board Member Beaver-Aye, Board Member Hilliard-Aye, Board Member Rowe-Aye. The motion to approve carried 4:0. OTHER BUSINESS None. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 3:55 p.m. 5