The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/04/1999 BOAi1 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS HELD ON MARCH 4,1999 Case No. 99-01 A REGULAR SESSION OF THE BOARD OF Adjustment & Appeals of the City of The Colony, Texas was called to order at 7:05 p.m. with the following members present: Mike Catt Rob Bauman Robert Poynter Constance Yahwak Gary McClure Gerald Odum Bruce Crutchfield Chairman Vice Chairman Member Member Member Alternate - Absent Alternate with one member absent and six members present, a quorum was established. Also in attendance were: Pat Dunlap, Director of Inspections, Designated Officer of the City Inspections Department; Sherry Hutchison, Recording Secretary. Alternate Gerald Odum was absent due to receiving a summons out of state. Chairman Catt opened the meeting with a review of Variance Procedures and Requirements. Chairman Catt then asked for Mr. Romo and Mr. Dunlap to be sworn in; and then the following items were discussed: Item #1: PUBLIC HEARING: Romo Realty Corp. requesting a variance for a five (5) foot encroachment of a side yard building line of a new residential structure to be located at 4544 North Shore Dr. in the City of The Colony. Item #2: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: From the June 9, 1998 meeting a request for a variance to allow for the construction of a privacy fence beyond the building line of the lot located at 5973 Sandhill Circle (Appeal No. 98-05). Chairman Catt then asked Mr. Dunlap for his Presentation. Mr. Dunlap gave his Presentation to the Board of Adjustment & Appeals on a Building Permit applied for by Romo Realty Corp to construct a Single Family Dwelling at the address of 4544 North Shore Dr., Lot 12, Block 11, Garza Little Elm Lake Estates, Subdivision of The Colony, Texas. The permit was denied due to the residential structure placement on the submitted plat does not meet the descriptive setback. Mr. Dunlap said the minimum required dwelling area for this lot is fifteen hundred (1500) square feet and required a minimum setback from the building side lot line on a cul-de-sac shaped street is fifteen (15) feet. He said that Romo Realty Corp. has submitted a site plan showing a fifteen hundred (15 00) square foot residential building being situated on this cul-de-sac shaped lot approximately ten (10) feet from the subject property line. He explained that Romo Realty Corp. was requesting a five (5) foot variance from the required fifteen (15) foot setback on that particular section of the lot. This would allow for placement of a minimum size residential building approximately ten (10) feet from the cal -de -sac street lot line. Mr. Dunlap pointed out to the Board Members that this particular shaped size lot does appear on the over all plat as being somewhat smaller than other lots in that particular subdivision. Mr. Dunlap asked if there were any questions. Member Bauman asked what was the intent of the ordinance, a safety factor or uniformity? Mr. Dunlap replied, primarily it is uniformity, and there does not appear to be safety issues involved. Member McClure asked if there were any other lots in this subdivision that violate this ordinance? Mr. Dunlap replied, not to his knowledge. Member McClure then asked if this would be a unique situation? Mr. Dunlap replied that this would be the first in this subdivision. Member Poynter said looking at the map, it seemed that this lot has the least square footage in this subdivision. Comparing to other lots, is it smaller? Mr. Dunlap replied, from his perspective, it appears to be. There were no further questions. Chairman Catt, with the staff presentation having been completed, called on Sam Romo of Romo Realty Corp. to make his presentation. Pg 2 Mr. Romo told the Board Members that he was President of Romo Realty Corp. and that he has been building a few homes in the Eastvale area for the last few years. Mr. Romo said that before Eastvale was incorporated, it was primarily designed in the beginning for smaller homes. After the incorporation, the city then changed the minimum square footage requirements to comply with the same in the new Colony area. Mr. Romo said it is difficult to sometimes meet those requirements. Mr. Romo explained this lot was fifty (50) feet wide but on a corner, stating that it is suppose to stay fifteen (15) feet away from the side street lot line. It is the right back corner that is effected. It will encroach the side yard setback five (5) feet. Mr. Romo told the Board Members he felt it would be a big plus to the area. Mr. Romo asked for any questions. Mr. Bauman said to grant a variance, the Board has to find a hardship. Mr. Bauman asked Mr. Romo if he would explain, excluding any monatary consideration? Mr. Romo replied, that the change of the minimum square footage requirements is what imposes a hardship on a builder. When requirements were changed, the city did not take into consideration that the lots in Eastvale are smaller. Chairman Catt asked for any other questions. There were none. Chairman Catt, with Mr. Romo having concluded his presentation, asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in support of the request? Alternate/Member Crutchfield asked if he could ask Mr. Dunlap a question since he was here as a citizen? Chairman Catt and Members had no problem with his asking questions. Member Crutchfield asked Mr. Dunlap if he had the square footage of the lot with the required setbacks and how many square feet remained after the setbacks were applied? Mr. Dunlap replied, he did not run any calculations. He looked at the plot plan and discovered it did not meet the descriptive requirements. Mr. Dunlap did note to the Board Members that letters were sent out to owners within a two hundred (200) foot radius. Recording Secretary told the Board there were thirty (30) letters sent out, one letter returned and two (2) phone calls, Mr. Tips and Mr. Brooks, neither having a problem with the variance. Chairman Catt having now heard the comments and presentations of those in support of the request, asked for those in the audience that wished to speak against the request. There were none. Chairman Catt then asked Mr. Romo for a rebuttal. Mr. Romo had none. Pg 3 Chairman Catt asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion to close — Member Poynter; second — Member Bauman. Motion passed with a unanimous vote. During a brief discussion, Member McClure made a motion to grant the variance but could not during a closed hearing. Chairman Catt, after the closed discussion, asked Member McClure would he like to reinstate his motion. A motion to grant the variance based on the hardship created by the Pre -Colony history of the platting of the property, the fact that it is a unique property and is small which creates a hardship for the owner. Motion to approve — Member McClure; second — Member Yahwak. Motion passed with a unanimous vote. Chairman Catt addressed Item #2 — the approval of the minutes from the June 9, 1998 meeting. Motion to approve — Member Bauman; second — Member Poynter. Motion passed with four (4) yeas — one (1) abstain. Board Members had a discussion of a joint meeting with City Council Members to discuss variance procedures. Consensus of the Commission was to have a joint meeting within thirty (30) days. Motion to approve — Member Poynter; second — Member Yahwak. Motion passed with four (4) yeas — one (1) nay. Motion to close the meeting — Member Poynter; second — Member Yahwak. Motion passed with a unanimous vote. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. (a � .tit-'1✓12�i-?�'<-;�' erry ison, Recording Secretary Pg 4 Mike Ca Chairman