Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/1998 BOABoard of Adjustment and Appeals June 9, 1998 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS MEETING HELD ON June 9, 1998 The Regular Session of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of The Colony, Texas was called to order at 6:00 p.m. on the 9th day of June 1998, at City Hall with the following members present: Mike Catt, Chair Robert Bauman, Vice Chair Constance Yahwak Robert Poynter Bruce Crutchfield, Alternate Gary McClure was absent (professional) Gerald Odum was absent Staff. Harry Persaud, Director of Planning Wade Shelton, Recording Secretary With five (5) members present, a quorum was established and the following items were addressed: 2. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: 2.1 A request for variance to allow for the construction of a privacy fence beyond the building line of the lot located at 5973 Sandhill Circle (Appeal N0. 98-05). Chairman Catt proceeded to swear -in the applicant and Staff (Calvin and Kathy Todd and Harry Persaud). Chairman Catt opened the public hearing. Chairman Catt asked the Staff to make its presentation. Mr. Persaud began his presentation by stating that the request from the applicants is to construct a 6' privacy fence beyond the building line of their property. Staff did conduct research concerning this matter. The property in question is an irregularly shaped lot. The zoning regulations require no building beyond the 25' front building line. Section 21-103 puts forth the requirements for the Board of Adjustment for reaching a decision. These four issues need to be addressed. First, the ordinance requires that you take into consideration the shape of the lot. Staff s finding is that the lot is irregularly shaped in nature both in shape and size. Board of Adjustment and Appeals June 9, 1998 Second, the ordinance does not allow the applicant to enjoy the use of their land in equal proportion as would be under normal circumstances. The lot in question has 43% of its front yard beyond the building line, whereas a normal lot would have approximately 22% of its front yard beyond the building line. Therefore, there is a disproportionate share of the lot beyond the building line that otherwise would not exist had the lot not have been shaped irregularly. The third question is whether the granting of the variance will have a detrimental effect on the Land Use Plan of the City. The applicant will construct the fence to align with the adjacent lot to the north. This will be more aesthetically correct than if the fence were to be constructed behind the building line. Therefore, Staff does not feel any aspect of the Land Use plan will be compromised if the variance is granted. Mr. Persaud noted that 18 property -owner notifications for the variance were mailed, and at this time, no responses have been received. Lastly, the variance that is being requested will not be a nuisance or deny any adjacent properties the enjoyment of their land. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Chairman Catt at this time asked for the applicant to make a presentation. Charles Todd of 5793 Sandhill Circle, The Colony, TX is the applicant for the variance. Mr. Todd began by submitting photographs to the Board. He then stated that he feels that he has met the requirements for a variance. The fence, he stated, does not have to sit on the property as shown in the Staff Report. It can be moved. Also, he will be incorporating landscaping into the fence. He has spoken to several of the homeowners surrounding his lot and they all support the variance. There is a safety issue as well as kids play in the yard quite regularly. Mr. Poynter asked about the alignment of the proposed fence to the front building line of the house. Are there not bushes in the area of the proposed fence? Mr. Todd stated that there is. Mr. Poynter continued by asking if there would be any problem with bringing the fence from that corner of the house straight to the fence line and removing the curves from the proposed fence. Mr. Todd stated that he is open to suggestions. Mr. Poynter asked the percentage of land that would be lost if the fence had to be constructed per ordinance. Mr. Todd stated that a rough estimate would be 15%. Various sundry comments ensued regarding the fence contractor, security issues and Mr. Crutchfield asked if the fence would obstruct the view of any traffic that is exiting the alley. Mr. Todd stated that the fence line, due to the curvature of the street, would have more of a problem seeing to the right as opposed to the left. The fence will have a visibility triangle to match the adjacent fence. Mr. Persaud stated that that is correct. 2 Board of Adjustment and Appeals June 9, 1998 Chairman Catt asked if there are any supporters that wished to speak. Chairman Catt asked, then, if there is any opposition to the request. Chairman Catt asked, then, if the applicant would like to rebut any of the previous comments. Mr. Todd stated "no". Chairman Catt then closed the public hearing. Mr. Poynter expressed concern over the alignment of the curved section of the fence as shown in the Staff Report and how it meets the structure. He would like to see the fence meet the corner of the house instead. This will not obscure any part of the front facade of the house. The Board voice agreement. Mr. Crutchfield asked if the height was indeed 6'. Mr. Persaud stated that is correct. Mr. Crutchfield stated that he wanted clarification on the issue for safety concerns. Visibility to and from the alley could be an issue here. Mr. Poynter stated that traffic is supposed to stop upon exiting the alley by law. Also, the issue is the same for all the alleys in The Colony. This situation would be no different. Mr. Persaud stated to the Chairman that Staff would like to see three stipulations if the variance is requested: one, that a visibility triangle be provided; two, that the permit drawn for the construction of the fence, and; three, that the fence not be built as to obscure any portion of the front fagade of the house. Some discussion ensued as to the definition of the "front" of the house. Mr. Poynter expressed concern over having the permit issue included in the motion. Motion to approve the variance as it is presented, Mr. Bauman; Seconded by Mr. Poynter. Motion carried 5-0. 3.0 OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Poynter expressed concern over the fact that the City is only garnering a few variance cases a year. It has come to his attention that variances may be being discouraged by the City. Mr. Persaud stated that Staff does not dissuade citizens from applying for variances. There have been requests for variances, but they are beyond the scope of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Therefore, he will not bring them to the Board if there is nothing that the Board could do about it. If there are concerns from citizens with regard to not being able to apply for a variance, he would like to have the details to ensure that Staff is not interfering. Discussion ensued regarding the application procedure and requirements. 3 Board of Adjustment and Appeals June 9, 1998 Mr. Persaud stated that in the future when a variance situation arises, he will inform the Chairman of the situation. Motion to adjourn, Mr. Poynter; Second, Ms. Yahwak. Motion carried 5-0. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. A ii Mike G4tt, Chairperson ATTEST: ade Shel -z, Recording Secretary M