The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-02-22 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS -- February 22, 2001 MINUTES The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustments was called to order by Chairman Victor Blood at 7:00 p.m. for consideration of scheduled items in the Council Chambers in Building "B" of the Municipal Building. MEMBERS AND STAFF PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT Victor Blood Eddie Price John Deithloff Tony May Bill Williams Mike Collins, Director of Planning & Development Eric Wilhite, Planning & Development Manager Bob McFarland, City Attorney Perry Bynum, Alternate Board Member Mark Hayslip, Assistant Building Official Lesley Mason, Secretary Donna Brown, Administrative Secretary Gary McKamie, Deputy City Manager VISITORS: Steve Overton Bob West, Special Counsel for City of Euless William Meier, Attorney for property owner Steve Overton THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION: Chairman Victor Blood gave The Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Victor Blood called for a motion to approve the minutes of January 25, 2001 as presented. Victor Blood & Bill Williams asked that some adjustments be made to wording on page four. With rewording of page four, Bill Williams motioned to accept the minutes and John Deithloff seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Chairman Williams, Board Members Bynum, May, Deithloff, Blood Nays: None Abstention: None The motion carried. The Board members conducted an election of officers which confirmed Bill Williams as Chairman and Victor Blood as Vice Chairman. John Deithloff made the motion and Tony May seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Chairman Victor Blood, Board Members Price, May, Deithloff, Williams Nays: None Abstention: None Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 2 February 22, 2001 The motion carried. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 1 CASE #00-11-ZBA — HOLD PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN AMORTIZATION Receive public input regarding a request to establish a date certain to terminate a non-conforming use. The applicant, City of Euless, is requesting ZBA action to facilitate the discontinuance of a nonconforming use. This property is located on Oak Crest Addition, Block 1, Lots 1R and 2R, Block 2, Lot 1R, on 203, 204 and 205 Dickey Drive. Mr. Williams continued the meeting as Chairman. Robert West of 301 Commerce, Ft. Worth, Tx. 76102, addressed the Board as special counsel for the City of Euless and stated that he was prepared to go forward with the case for Item 1. William C. Meier of 2350 Airport Freeway, Bedford, Tx, addressed the Board as representative of the owner of the above-mentioned property, known as "God's Chariot". He requested that this case be viewed as a precedent for the City. He stated that he was not prepared to go forward at this time. Chairman stated since ew -- the agenda Williams be postponed until that a later dateneither. Mark party Hayslip involved was interr jected ady to a go correforction ard that Staff was indeed prepared to go forward. Victor Blood suggested that the hearing of Item 1 be postponed until after Spring Break. Perry Bynum suggested that this case be the only item on the agenda when heard. Bob McFarland stated that Item 1 should actually not be postponed, but instead be tabled to a time certain. John Deithloff moved that Item 1 be tabled until the next regular meeting of March 29, 2001. Tony May seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Chairman Williams, Board Members Bynum, May, Deithloff, Blood Nays: None Abstention: None The motion carried. Chairman Williams voiced concerns about establishing procedures that would pertain to cases such as this one if/when they arrive in the future. He wanted to encourage all parties to explore reaching an agreement. He also wanted to order parties to enter into arbitration in civil action. Bob McFarland interjected that the Board has no such authority (enforcement authority), and pointed out that only the City has enforcement powers (via the Police Department). He pointed out that the City Council can pass ordinances & make those penal ordinances if they involve public health, safety, & welfare of the community. After lengthy discussion regarding whether a case should be posted/reposted if the case has simply been postponed from a previous meeting, Bill Williams motioned that any notice reauirements reaardina oostina/publication for amortization cases be the Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 3 February 22,2001 same as any other case brought before the ZBA. Victor Blood seconded the motion. The vote is as follows: Ayes: Chairman Williams, Board Members Bynum, May, Deithloff, Blood Nays: None Abstention: None The motion carried. The Board discussed how the Z8A would receive any evidence and/or documentation for an amortization case and setting a time frame (ten days) for receiving that information in order to have ample time to disseminate the information. Any further information offered after that 10 day period would be at the discretion of the Board to accept Mark Hayslip interjected that staff requested that this requirement not be a consideration as due to ongoing investigation might bring forth last-minute information that would be pectinate to the case. He stated that Staff would like any and all information to be presented and considered. Tony May stated that he would have a problem setting deadlines for accepting information/evidence. Bill Williams suggested that from the date that the City applies for amortization on a particular case, the case cannot be heard for a minimum of 90 days. Bob McFarland stipulated that the Board does have the authority to establish rules regarding presenting all exhibits and evidence within a deadline to the Board. Mark Hayslip stated that City Staff would recommend that no longer than 60 days be given to respond/ask for a continuance; the 60 day response time is basic procedure established on abatement of dangerous structures as adopted by the City Council. Bob McFarland pointed out that action should not be taken on future procedures for amortization cases because all that was posted for this particular meeting was case# 00-11-ZBA (therefore procedures could be established for this case only). Victor Blood motioned that all parties be required to submit documentation that they want the Board to consider 10 days prior to the posted meeting date & it is at the Board's discretion to consider any documentation submitted after that. Perry Bynum seconded the motion. Bob West interjected that no information should be disallowed/avoided no matter what time schedule is set due to the fact that the Board's (and City's) goal is to have a full & public fair hearing. Perry Bynum withdrew his second so that Victor Blood could amend his motion (Make a new motion) that the parties to the action submit any documentation to be considered 15 days prior to the posted date of the ZBA meeting with a rebuttal date 5 days prior, and after that any additional information (documentation) to be accepted at the discretion of the Board. (Only exceptions would be witnesses). Bill Williams seconded the motion. Mike Collins inquired as to whether the submitted information would go through normal City (Planning & Zoning) channels and the Board affirmed his inquiry. It was decided that (10) ten copies of whatever information to be disseminated would be submitted by all parties delivered directly or by Certified Mail (Courier to be included). The vote is as follows: The vote is as follows: Ayes: Chairman Williams, Board Members Bynum, May, Deithtoff, Blood Nays: None Abstention: None The motion carried. Zoning Board of Adjustment Page 4 February 22, 2001 Mr. West pointed out that he knew of no other municipal type of proceeding (government or otherwise) that gets into depositions, interrogatory, or disclosures. He suggested that the Board avoid going in that direction because it was too time consuming and involved multiple meetings, etc. The Board felt that the appropriate procedural guidelines to follow would be: • The applicant make an opening statement • There would be a responding opening statement by the opposition • The applicant would offer his case (if witnesses presented, can be cross-examined) • The opposing counsel would offer his case (witnesses cross-examined) • Rebuttal on both sides (first by applicant, then by opposition) • Closing statements by each party (applicant first, then opposing party) • Public hearing would close at that time (any Board member would have the chance to ask questions of any of the witnesses at any time) • After the Board completes its discussion, would entertain a motion & a second & adoption of the motion to conclude the case. A minimum of four members of the Board would be required to pass the motion. Bill Williams made the above listing of procedures into a motion and Victor Blood seconded the motion. The vote is as follows: Ayes: Chairman Williams, Board Members Bynum, May, Deithloff, Blood Nays: None Abstention: None The motion carried. The amortization case is scheduled to be heard during the next scheduled ZBA meeting on March 22, 2001. Adjournment: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. 3 • z - vedr Chairman Date //GJJte t3cUoI7 - /.icr�,it