Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-13 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS -- December 13, 2001 MINUTES The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustments was called to order by Chairman Victor Blood at 6:30 p.m. for consideration of scheduled items in the Council Chambers in Building "B" of the Municipal Building. Chairman Victor Blood stated there were five members with two non-voting members of the Zoning Board of Adjustments present. MEMBERS AND STAFF PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT Chairman Victor Blood Vice Chairman Tony May John Deithloff Eddie Price Perry Bynum Thomas Stover, Alt. Luther Dube, Alt. Mike Collins, Director of Planning and Development Ron Young, Asst. Dir. of Public Works Karla Dickerson, Administrative Secretary VISITORS: Lee Bonham THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION: The Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation was given by Perry Bynum. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Member Deithloff made a motion to approve the minutes of November 8, 2001. Board Member Bynum seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Chairman Blood, Vice Chairman May, Board Members Deithloff, Bynum and Price. Nays: None Abstention: None The motion carried (5-0-0). Chairman Blood gave rules governing a public hearing. _ REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 1 CASE #01-07-ZBA — HOLD PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A FENCE VARIANCE Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 2 December 13, 2001 Receive public input regarding a request for a Fence Variance. The applicant is requesting the variance in order to construct a fence. This property is located on Oakland Estates, Block 2, Lot 14, on 206 W. Ash Ln. Mike Collins, Director of Planning and Development, gave a brief overview of case #01- 07-ZBA. He stated the purpose of the hearing was to receive public input regarding a request for a fence variance. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to construct a fence that encroaches within the front building line of his residential property. This property is located on Oakland Estates, Block 2, Lot 14, on 206 W. Ash Ln. The code requirements are that no fence or free standing wall greater than 36" in height shall extend in the required front yard of property zoned for one or two family dwelling units. The applicant has constructed a residence on a property zoned R-1, which establishes a 25' front yard set back. The applicant is before the Commission tonight to request an exception to this code requirement to enable him to construct a fence that is located on the front property line and the fence would consist of wrought iron, five feet in height, and attached to a total of four six foot tall brick columns that would flank the two drive approaches on the circular drive. There were be no gates installed at the drive approaches. The applicant, Mr. Bonham, is here and would be happy to respond to any questions from the Commission. — Chairman Blood opened the public hearing. Chairman Blood asked the applicant to come forward for any comments. Mr. Lee Bonham, 206 W. Ash Ln., Euless, Tx, stated that he apologized to the board from not being at the last meeting because he did not understand it was expected of him to be at the meeting. He also thanked the Commission for giving him another opportunity to address the Commission. Mr. Bonham stated that his builder had never built in the City of Euless and it was very difficult to get contractors. As he was talking with the cement contractors they said they could pour the slab for the fence columns easily while they were pouring the driveway, so Mr. Bonham had them do this at that time. Then, the brick contractor stated to Mr. Bonham they could brick the columns while they were there to brick the house. Mr. Bonham stated he did not realize until after the City Inspector came by that a permit was required for this work. The Inspector stopped the construction on the fence at that time and informed the contractor a permit would need to be obtained to continue. When the contractor came to purchase a permit he was informed that a variance would need to be obtained due to the request for the type of fence to be constructed. Mr. Bonham stated that when he purchased the property it had either a 42 or 48 inch chain link fence. He did not know it would make a difference whether the house would face the street or was back as far as the fence. Driving down Ash Ln. there are fences anywhere from 6 foot to 3 foot in height. He stated that he felt he was not asking for anything out of the ordinary from the rest of the area on Ash Ln. Chairman Blood asked Mr. Bonham if the fence was shown on the site plans that were initially submitted to the City. Mr. Bonham stated that the fence was not shown on the Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 3 December 13, 2001 plans at the time. Chairman Blood closed the public hearing due to no proponents/opponents. Vice Chairman May stated his question to Mr. Bonham was that he seemed to be aware that a 3 foot high fence that could be placed there and his question was why not go ahead and place the 3 foot high fence verses a 5 foot high fence. Mr. Bonham stated this was his preference. He stated that if the variance is not granted he would put a 3 foot fence or not a fence at all. Vice Chairman May asked Mr. Bonham if he was aware of the 25 foot setback. He could still place, without a variance if he would go back 25 foot and one inch, the fence there. Mr. Bonham stated the columns are already there and the fence he would connecting to on the west side is 54 inches tall. (Mr. Bonham had a picture of the fence that he would be connecting to on the west side to illustrate the height.) Chairman Blood explained to Mr. Bonham that this governing body has the right to grant variances within a narrow scope that is defined the zoning ordinance. Chairman Blood read the following ordinance to Mr. Bonham to advise him how the board operates. The board regularly hears cases where the board might like to grant a variance but is not allowed to based on the guidelines. In order to grant a variance under a strict interpretation of the zoning ordinance the following conditions have to be met. The first, that the granting a variance will not be contrary to the public interest. This can be interpreted in a number of ways. The second is the one that ties our hands. This is that literal enforcement of the chapter will result in unnecessary hardship because of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topography or other extraordinary or exceptional physical situation or 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 hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations or caprice, and applicant or property owner's own actions. The third is by granting the variance, the spirit of this chapter will be observed and substantial justice will be done. Essentially this says the Commission can not make gross violations to the zoning ordinance and it has to be based on a condition relative to the sight, not whether it is a hardship to the owner. This creates a situation for the Commission to make a decision based on it. That was one of the reasons in the discussions last time the Commission met, the applicant has a bigger lot than most people and has less of a hardship in terms of locating a fence. There are some other issues that the Commission have that could be considered. There are the existing fences on Ash Ln. that have varying heights. They were all in existence before this ordinance was adopted. This ordinance is arbitrary in a lot of instances. The Commission is in a situation if they grant a variance will the Commission be setting a precedence for everyone else in town or will the Commission be setting a precedence only for other large lots in that subdivision. Normally the _ Commission does not grant variances that would create a precedence where the Commission would get 500 more cases coming in. This is a consideration for the Commission. In regards to this specific lot there are a couple of ways the Commission could look at this. The applicant could build a 3 foot fence with no variance, which the Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 4 December 13, 2001 Commission could look at a variance on the existing columns so the applicant could keep them and would not have to modify them or take them down. Or, the Commission could deny the request. Vice Chairman May asked the Board what their feelings were about the columns. Vice Chairman May stated he did not see a problem with the columns. Board Member Price stated he did see a problem with making this a 5 foot fence considering the scale of the property and similarity to the other fences. Board Member Price stated the hardship comes from the fact that all the other properties have fences that exceed the 3 foot limit. Chairman Blood stated the concern at the last meeting was the fact the fence located at this location could pose a problem with the proposed widening of this street at a future date. When the street is widened, an additional right of way will be required and this fence will have to be moved. Therefore, the City would have to pay to have this fence moved at that time. The previous discussion in the pre-meeting was the applicant could legally build a 3 foot fence and the cost to move a 3 foot versus a 5 foot fence would not be any more substantial. Board Member Deithloff asked the applicant if he had considered any other options and if he would be willing to adopt a different option. Mr. Bonham stated that a 3 foot wrought iron fence would not look good, but he could do without the fence also. Chairman Blood stated that if the Commission were to deny the request, the applicant could make a case to the City Council to consider modifying the ordinance for large lots. There are very few large lots which are basically in this subdivision. There are other cities that have ordinances that allow higher fences on larger lots. The City Council can modify the zoning ordinance. The applicant would need to work with the Planning Department. Chairman Blood asked staff if the Board can grant a variance and state with regard to whether it is a precedence or not for larger lots. Mike Collins, Director of Planning and Development, stated that through the deliberations the Board could establish for the record, the basis for your decision a belief that we do not currently have in our zoning ordinance development standards that are specific to deal with this case. Board Member Bynum asked if the Board needed to make any statement to recend the previous action taken by the ZBA. Mike Collins stated the Board did not. Mr. Collins made reference to the appeal process in Section 84-27(8)(a & b). Board Member Bynum asked if the Board did approach this in a different manner, allowing a variance on the 5 foot fence, would there be an issue on the continuation of the _ reimbursement for the expansion of the street. Chairman Blood stated this would apply to everyone on that street and they all have fences. Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 5 December 13, 2001 Board Member Price made a motion to approve case #01-07-ZBA as presented. Chairman Blood seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Chairman Blood and Board Member Price Nays: Vice Chairman May, Board Members Deithloff and Bynum Abstention: None The motion did not carry (2-3-0). Board Member Bynum made a motion to approve case #01-07-ZBA with the existing brick columns to remain with a 3 foot fence. Vice Chairman May seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Chairman Blood, Vice Chairman May, Board Members Bynum and Price. Nays: Board Member Deithloff Abstention: None The motion carried (4-1-0). Chairman Blood stated to the applicant that his option was to leave the columns and put a 3 foot fence and talk with staff about requesting City Council to address this and possibly modifying the zoning ordinance to apply to large lots. Several members of the Board think this is appropriate and would like to see this happen. Chairman Blood stated this was the last meeting for Board Member Deithloff on the Zoning Board of Adjustments and it has been a pleasure working with him. Adjournment: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Cha' man Victor Blood�1 Date