Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/02/1994 BOABOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS HELD ON NOVEMBER 2, 1994 CASE NO. 94-04 A REGULAR SESSION OF THE BOARD OF Adjustment & Appeals of the City of The Colony, Texas was called to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Tim O'Neill Mike Catt Rob Bauman Robert Poynter John Mitchell Gary McClure David McCreary Lynda Tate Chairman Vice Chairman Member Member Member Alternate Alternate Council Liaison and with all Board Members present, a quorum was established. Also in attendance were: Tom Cravens, Director of Public Works, Designated Officer of the City Inspections Department; Sherry Hutchison, Recording Secretary. Chairman O'Neill read an overview of Variance Procedures and Require- ments; at which time the following items were discussed: Item #1: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion to approve the minutes of the meeting held on April 27, 1994 with the amendments to Page 2, paragraphs 1 and 2 - Member Catt; second - Member Poynter. Motion passed with a unanimous vote. Item #2: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a request for Variance by Michael and Terasa Csolak, 4909 Pemberton Lane that would allow a six (6) foot wood privacy fence erected on a lot that has a double frontage. At this time Chairman O'Neill asked for those speaking for or against to be sworn in. Mr. Cravens advised the Board that applicant Michael Csolak had requested a variance for a fence at his property of 4909 Pemberton Lane Lot 1, Block 44, The Colony No. 6. Mr. Cravens showed a drawing of the Lot indicating that it was a double frontage lot. He expalained to the Board on a double frontage lot the building setback line was the same on both streets (Blair Oaks and Pemberton) and according to the Ordinance a fence cannot be constructed any closer than fifteen (15) feet from the side street property. Where Mr. Csolak was wanting to put it, it would be ten (10) feet from the building line but the way the ordinance is interpreted it is not allowed. Mr. Cravens said there were three other locations found that have a twenty five (25) foot building line at Blair Oaks and Middleton. No fence is there. The corner of Strickland and Griffin, again no fence and at the intersection of Ivy and Griffin there is a fence along property of this lot. Mr. Cravens said it was installed many years ago before The Colony had this ordinance. Mr. Cravens then asked for any questions. Member Mitchell asked Mr. Cravens for the History on this ordinance. Mr. Cravens replied he did not know how long it had been on the books. Member Mitchell then asked if there were fences built on the property line in these circumstances prior to the ordinance? Mr. Cravens replied correct, that finding the one out of three had a fence there. Member Mitchell asked - we do not know why the ordinance was inacted? Mr. Cravens replied no. Member Poynter said he had talked to Police Chief Stewart and one of his concerns was the view of traffic on the corner and the fence blocking the view. Mr. Cravens replied that would be one problem of having the fence on the property line, was visability. Chairman O'Neill asked for any further discussion. With no further discussion Chairman O'Neill then called upon the applicant for his presentation. Mr. Csolak said as far as the fence, it was not going to go all the way to the front of the house only to the side, to the slidding doors and he did not feel it would be an obstruction to the traffic. He spoke of having two little daughters that he needs to keep in the yard and no matter what he has to fence the yard in. Pg 2 C Chairman O'Neill asked Mr. Csolak if he had anything to present to the Board for permanent record for example, any pictures. Mr. Csolak did then submit some pictures. Chairman O'Neill asked Mr. Csolak if he had any further comments or hardships he would like to express to the Board. Mr. Csolak said his daughters were his only concern. Member Bauman told Mr. Csolak that he was trying to justify a hardship here and he needed his help with that. Mr. Csolak replied that, as stated on his application, the hardship is his children and his dog. He said he also felt his children would get bored in a smaller yard. Mr. Cravens then said he had received one letter against the variance. Chairman O'Neill then asked for those in the audience that wished to speak in support of the request. There were none. Those in the audience that wished to speak against the request: Vern Lang at 6005 Blair Oaks spoke of his biggest concern being, if the fence goes all the way down their East property line to his South property line and runs west it would completely block him off from any view. Another concern was safety of the corner with the view blocked. With the six foot fence running along his property it would box him in and he felt if he ever sold his property people would not buy the property completely sealed off from view. Chairman O'Neill then asked if there were any other questions. With none, he read a letter from Jim and Mary Joyce at 4905 Pemberton, who,because of being out of town, could not attend. The letter mentioned concerns of hardship on them with the view blocked and a safety problem for area residents as well. They asked that the variance be denied and the Csolaks follow and conform to the same guidelines and rules that the other Colony Residents follow. They requested that this letter becomes part of permanent record. Chairman O'Neill called upon the applicant for a brief rebutal. Mr. Csolak said he felt the people that were not in attendance were not aware of where the fence would be going. He felt they assumed it would be going all the way to the corner. Pg 3 Motion to close the Public Hearing - Member Poynter; second - Member Catt. Motion carried with a unanimous vote. Brief discussion followed regarding the request: Member Poynter mentioned the same concern as Mr. Langs, with him having to look at the fence. Mr. Poynter said he could not see a hardship. Member Catt said after walking the property and with much thought, he did not necessarily see the hardship. Member Mitchell said he came looking for a compromise, and frankly the ordinance itself is reasonable. Chairman O'Neill asked for any further discussion. With none, he asked if there was a motion in reference to this item. Motion to deny the variance - Member Poynter; second - Member Catt. Motion passed with a unanimous vote. Chairman O'Neill then went into the next item on the Agenda. Item #3: WORK SESSION: Discussion of Board of Adjustment and Appeals Policies and Procedures. Motion to table the meeting until further review of Appeals Operations Guide - Member Bauman; second - Member Catt. Chairman O'Neill asked for any discussion on the motion. Member Mitchell requested to review the guide before tabling it. After review and some discussion, a Work Session to discuss the guide was set for November 30, 1994. Motion to approve the November 30, 1994 date for review of guide - Member Bauman; second - Member Catt. Motion passed with a unanimous vote. Lynda Tate, Council Liaison for the Board of Adjustment and Appeals told Chairman O'Neill that she had requested Johnny Smith, City Manager to be present, and that she wanted recognition of the Board. She then read a letter from herself to the Board. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:32. Tim 0 Neill,' ChaArman Sh rry hison, Recording Secretary J / %l Pg 4