Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-6-21 BA Minutes * M I N U T E S * BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 6, 2021 City Hall, 801 Main Street A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on May 6, 2021 and called to order at 3:23 p.m. with the following members present: Acting Chairman Jeff Beaver Board Member Joey Hilliard Board Member Lee Smith Alternate Board Member Christy Amuny Board Members absent: Chairman Dana Timaeus Board Member Tom Rowe Also present: Demi Laney, Senior Planner Tyrone Cooper, City Attorney Cindy Aviles, Permit Processing Clerk Catherine Allen, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Member Smith moved to approve the minutes for February 4, 2021. Board Member Hilliard seconded the motion. The motion to approve the minutes carried 4:0. Cindy Aviles, Permit Processing Clerk, served as a Spanish language interpreter for the applicant during the meeting. Acting Chairman Beaver informed the applicant, Jose Martinez, that with only four (4) members present, an approval would require a unanimous vote. He explained Mr. Martinez’s options of continuing the meeting with the members present or postponing to a future meeting. Mr. Martinez chose to continue with the meeting. SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES All witnesses were sworn in at 3:27 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING 1) File PZ2021-58: To consider a request for a Variance to the required minimum side yard setback for an accessory structure in R-S (Residential Single-Family) zoning, to be reduced from 2’6” to 8”. Applicant: Jose Martinez Location: 3015 Blackmon Ln BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 6, 2021 Ms. Laney presented the staff report. Jose Martinez is requesting a variance for the property located at 3015 Blackmon Ln. The property is zoned Residential Single-Family (R-S) and therefore requires a 2’6” setback on the side property line for an accessory structure. The applicant is requesting a variance to the side yard setback to be reduced from 2’6” to 8” for their accessory structure. The original submitted site plan was approved for the accessory structure to be located 5’ away from the side property line. However, the contractor that installed the building did not follow the approved plans and zero inspections were called in to inspect the building placement prior to securing it to a permanent foundation. The applicant has inquired to move the accessory structure to meet the approved setbacks from their contractor; however, it will cost $15,979.24 to do so. Additionally, the accessory structure is located within a 5’ utility easement. If the variance were granted, the applicant would then apply for a license to encroach from the Engineering Department. 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 survey were shown. Twenty-eight (28) notices were mailed to property owners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property. No responses were received in favor and one was received in opposition. Ms. Laney summarized the letter in opposition. Ms. Laney provided a copy of the bid to move the accessory structure to the Board. Discussion followed about the intended placement of the building and the original approved plan. Board Member Hilliard asked when the placement of the building changed and Ms. Laney replied that the contractor placed the building incorrectly. 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 6, 2021 Acting Chairman Beaver asked about the letter in opposition and where that property owner was located in relation to the subject property. Ms. Laney indicated on the map where the property owner was located and that it was not the house directly next to the accessory building. Mr. Cooper asked if the building was encroaching on two easements and Ms. Laney replied that it is only encroaching on one. Discussion followed concerning the need for a license to encroach due to this easement. Further discussion followed to clarify that the property owner in opposition was not the owner of the property next to the accessory building. Ms. Laney stated that she would check the records to confirm the owner before the end of the meeting. Board Member Hilliard asked if there was a copy of the original and changed blueprints. Ms. Laney clarified that the site plan shows the intended plan and that the survey was done to indicate the actual placement of the building. She also mentioned that a complaint and an inspection are what prompted action on the case. Mr. Cooper stated that the easement encroachment is a problem and that the City would not be responsible for any damage caused if utility work were needed in the easement. Board Member Hilliard stated that this may cause future litigation. Ms. Laney stated that no inspections were called in for the project and that the contractor was not bonded with the City. She added that the contractor was Mallett Buildings out of Louisiana. The applicant, Jose Martinez, 3015 Blackmon Lane, addressed the board. With translation assistance from Ms. Aviles, he stated that the building was not supposed to be placed where it is and that he was not home when it was built. He offered to answer any questions that the Board had for him. Acting Chairman Beaver asked if Mr. Martinez knew the person in the green house next to the accessory building and if they are in opposition. Mr. Martinez replied that he did know them and that they are aware of the building placement and do not have a problem with it. Alternate Board Member Amuny asked when the building was built and Mr. Martinez answered that it was built in February 2021. Discussion followed about the concrete below the building. Mr. Martinez stated that it did not have a slab and that the concrete was poured in the back and inside the building after it was placed. Ms. Laney stated that the gravel driveway was already present. Acting Chairman Beaver stated that he had a problem with the 5’ easement being blocked to City access by the building. Discussion followed concerning there also being an easement in the back of the property which could allow access as well, but that the side still may need to be accessed at some point. 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 6, 2021 Mr. Cooper clarified that a license to encroach would cure any title issues for any future sales of the property, but that if the license is granted, any damages caused by utility work would be the responsibility of the applicant. Ms. Laney added that if granted, the variance would be the first step in a further process. Board Members asked if the contractor who built the building was the same as the contractor who created the bid to move it to the intended placement. Mr. Martinez confirmed this to be the case. Discussion followed amongst the Board about the easement and license to encroach. Ms. Laney presented the record from the Jefferson Central Appraisal District showing the property owner of the letter in opposition. The Board continued to review the pictures and exhibits and discussed further amongst themselves. Alternate Board Member Amuny moved to approve the request allowing a Variance to the required minimum side yard setback for an accessory structure in R-S (Residential Single-Family) zoning, to be reduced from 2’6” to 8”, as requested in File PZ2021-58. Board Member Hilliard seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. Acting Chairman Beaver-Aye, Board Member Hilliard-Aye, Board Member Smith-Aye, Alternate Board Member Amuny-Aye. The motion to approve carried 4:0. Discussion followed about the next steps in the process, concerning the license to encroach provisions and ensuring the applicant’s understanding. Ms. Laney stated that she intended to go over the process with the applicant after the meeting. OTHER BUSINESS None. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:00 p.m. 4