Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-15 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS January 15, 2004 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 City Hall of the Municipal Complex. Chairman Victor Blood stated there was a quorum of members of the Zoning Board of Adjustments present. MEMBERS AND STAFF PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT Chairman Victor Blood Thomas Stover Luther Dube Eddie Price Michael Cornell Mike Collins, Director of Planning and Development Kurt Kasson, Building Official Richard Ross, Inspections Services Supervisor Ken Rawlinson, Inspector Karla Dickerson, Administrative Secretary VISITORS: Kari Koran; Marsha Sam; Cheryl Steggell; Amy Berryhill Tara Beam; Sherman and Sharon Williams. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION: The Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation was given by Thomas Stover. ITEM 1 ELECTION OF OFFICERS Board Member Cornell made a motion for Victor Blood to remain as Chairman. Board Member Dube seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Board Members Stover, Dube, Cornell and Price Nays: N one Abstention: Chairman Blood The motion carried (4-0-1). Board Member Price made a motion for Thomas Stover to serve as Vice Chairman. Board Member Dube seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Chairman Blood, Board Members Dube, Cornell and Price Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 2 January 15, 2004 Nays: N one Abstention: Board Member Stover The motion carried (4-0-1) ITEM 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES for called meeting of December 13, 2001 Board Member Price made a motion to approve minutes of December 13, 2001. Vice Chairman Stover seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Chairman Blood, Vice Chairman Stover, Board Members Dube, Cornell and Price Nays: N one Abstention: None The motion carried (5-0-0). ITEM 3 CASE #04-01-ZBA — HOLD PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE Receive public input regarding a request for a Variance. The applicant is requesting a Variance from Performing Standards. This property is located on Chelsea Park Estates, Block B, Lot 15R, 235 Brittany Ct. Chairman Blood opened the public hearing. Mike Collins, Director of Planning and Development, gave a brief overview of the case. Sherman and Sharon William s reside at 235 Brittany Court and have a portion of their rear property line that abuts the rear property line of a property owner that resides at 2704 Knoll Dr. That individual is Marsha Sahm. The City of Euless received a complaint from Ms. Sahm claiming that a directional spot light was aimed towards the rear of her house on 2704 Knoll Dr. This lighting trespass creates a glare inside Ms. Sahm's house. The glare would constitute a nuisance violation under the City of Euless Uniform Development Code. After receiving the complaint, City staff went out on site and determined that it did indeed create a nuisance violation that constituted glare created from the light trespass. As a consequence of that determination city staff sought to accomplish voluntary compliance and not being able to accomplish voluntary compliance would issue a Notice of Violation against the Williams for the glare. After nothing was done in response to the Notice of Violation the Williams would appear before Municipal Court last week. The reason why the board is here today is the owner or operator of a building, structure, operation or use that violates any performance standard may file an application for a variance from the provisions thereof and in the application filing for this exception they shall set forth the following information: 1) All Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 3 January 15, 2004 ._ actions that have been taken to comply with said provisions; 2) The reasons why immediate compliance can not be achieved. Mr. Collins presented photographs to the board that showed the relationship of the property between the two parties. Mr. Collins asked for Ken Rawlinson, Inspector, to come forward and describe what was in the following photographs. Ken Rawlinson, Inspector, stated the photographs showed the difference in elevation between the properties, the current fence, and the light in question located on a pedestal, also a picture that shows the light trespass at night (taken by Ms. Sahm). Chairman Blood asked if the applicant or representative desired to come forward for comments. Sherman Williams, 235 Brittany Ct., Euless, passed out a packet of information to each Board Member but was not available to the staff. Mr. Williams stated he would be reading from this packet verbatim and to follow along with him. Chairman Blood asked for any proponents to come forward for comments. Seeing none Chairman Blood asked for any opponents to come forward for comments. Kari Koran, 14300 Statler Blvd. #812, Fort Worth, stated when she was visiting the -- resident at 2704 Knoll Trail in October she had observed light protruding through the windows of the house as if a light had been left on inside. Ms. Koran stated the light was coming from the property at 235 Brittany Ct. Jeannie Greer, 2350 N. Main St. #3912, Euless, stated she has also seen the light from 235 Brittany Ct. protruding into the house. She also stated she saw how much of the light was protruding into Ms. Sahm's bedroom at night. Marsha Sahm, 2704 Knoll Trail, Euless, stated she purchased this home 9 years ago, lived there for one year and then leased the home for several years and then moved back into the house. Ms. Sahm stated she had been back in the house a week and noticed one of the fence panels falling down. Ms. Sahm stated that Mr. Williams had contacted her in regards to the fence. She stated when they met, Mr. Williams gave her a paper that stated how much it would cost Ms. Sahm to fix her fence. Ms. Sahm told Mr. Williams she thought it was a shared fence. She stated Mr. Williams told her the fence was on her property and it was her responsibility to fix the fence. Ms. Sahm stated she was not financially able to fix the fence and asked her son-in-law what it would cost to put up the fence. Due to the cost, she asked her son-in-law if he could do something so the fence would not fall down. Ms. Sahm stated her son-in-law told her the fence had been cut with a saw. Ms. Sahm received notice from the city that the fence was in violation and would need to be fixed. Ms. Sahm stated she contacted the city and asked what her options were for replacing the fence. She stated she was told there was no law stating she had to Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 4 January 15, 2004 ,_ have a fence. At that time Ms. Sahm stated she had the fence taken down. When this occurred Ms. Sahm stated she started receiving harassment from the Williams' for not putting up another fence. Ms. Sahm stated she has a small dog and the Williams told her they were afraid her dog would jump the 4 foot wall and attack them. She stated the Williams would contact Animal Control because her dog goes out at 5:00pm and would bark. Ms. Sahm stated the she has seen Mrs. Williams outside many times intoxicated so Ms. Sahm called the city because she was afraid that Mrs. Williams would fall into her backyard. She stated the city advised her to put up a fence. Ms. Sahm informed the city she could not afford an 8 foot fence at that time and asked what other type of fence she could put up. Ms. Sahm stated she found a picket fence she wanted to put up and asked the city if they would be alright and it was approved. Ms. Sahm stated she had trouble putting up the fence because the Williams called the police and told them Ms. Sahm could not stand on the ledge to put the poles in the ground. Ms. Sahm stated that after the picket fence was put up, the light appeared. Ms. Sahm stated she did everything she could to block out the light in order to keep from having to call the city. Chairman Blood asked Ms. Sahm when the light at 235 Brittany Ct. had been installed. Ms. Sahm stated the light appeared after the fence was taken down and the new fence was put up. Ms. Sahm stated she has had to put up quilts in the windows to block out the light so she could sleep at night. Ms. Sahm stated the light illuminates her whole -- house. She also stated she does not mind them having the light as long as it does not point directly into her house. Ms. Sahm stated she has tried to get along with all her neighbors and does not try to make trouble for any of them, including the Williams. Chairman Blood asked the applicant to come forward for any rebuttal comments. Chairman Blood advised the applicant that if the fence is a deed restriction, the city does not have jurisdiction on deed restrictions. He advised the city would have jurisdiction if it was a condition of a specific use permit for approval of the subdivision. Chairman Blood stated the problems that have been going on between the two neighbors is not something the Zoning Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction, this is merely background information and asked for any comments to be kept to the lighting issue. Sharon Williams, 235 Brittany Ct., Euless, stated she would like to point out some discrepancies from previous comments. She stated the reason Ken Rawlinson told Ms. Sahm she did not have to put up a fence was because Ms. Sahm told Mr. Rawlinson she did not have a dog. Mrs. Williams stated that at that time there were two dogs at that location that could potentially come into their yard. Mrs. Williams stated another inconsistency was from Ms. Koran, who stated Ms. Sahm had decided she was going to call the city about the light after she had visited Ms. Sahm two to three days before Halloween. Mrs. Williams stated the first complaint was the 2nd of October. Mrs. Williams stated Mr. Rawlinson was in Ms. Sahm's backyard along with Ms. Sahm's boyfriend, Gary Tyler. She stated they both initiated the complaint. Mrs. Williams also stated Mr. Tyler had contacted the police department about the light and had them Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 5 January 15, 2004 come out to ask the Williams to turn the light out. Mrs. Williams stated they informed the officer the lighting was part of their security lighting they have had on their home for over 14 years and it was all existing lighting. Mrs. Williams stated the officer went into the yard and observed the light pointing to the ground and stated there was no offense. Mrs. Williams stated they have asked the city to address their questions. Mrs. Williams stated Mr. Collins stated he had been out and viewed the light from different angles and saw there were lights and noticed a glare. Mrs. Williams explained that her husband offered to put up the fence for Ms. Sahm and it would only cost her$100. Mr. Williams stated that Ms. Sahm was uncooperative and would not accept his offer. Mrs. Williams stated the Ms. Sahm told a police officer that she would split the cost of repairing the fence. Chairman Blood advised the Williams the fence was not the issue for this case. Mrs. Williams stated the violation was not correct because there was nothing in the code that reads they have to remove the light. • Chairman Blood asked Mrs. Williams if they had considered putting up their own fence. Mrs. Williams stated they could not afford to put up a fence. Mrs. Williams stated Ms. Sahm took the fence down and she was the one who created this hardship. Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Collins for his opinion if the 8 foot fence was still in place today in a repaired state would he have been able to see the light from Ms. Sahm's property. Mr. Collins stated he would not know. Mrs. Williams asked Mr. Collins why. Mr. Collins stated he had not witnessed the light when it was on within the presence of there being an 8 foot fence on that property line. Mrs. Williams stated they have not had any complaints from their neighbors because of the lights on their house. Mr. Williams stated the position of the light is approximately 27-28 degrees. Chairman Blood asked Mr. Williams what was the wattage of the light. Mr. Williams stated it was 25 or 26 watts. Mrs. Williams stated the light was shielded and it was a spot light. Mr. Williams stated the light was for security because they have had verbal threats and property damaged. Mr. Williams stated if they were to put the light on the shed that the light could be damaged. Mr. Williams stated he angles the light towards the ground every night. He stated when he checks the light in the morning it is pointing into the trees or at Ms. Sahm's property. Mr. Williams stated that due to animals coming into their yard in the evening this could be the reason for the light changing directions. Mr. Williams stated it was the citation that was in question. Mrs. Williams stated she had two more instances to report: 1) the issue of the interpretation of the word visual discomfort, glare and deflection. Mrs. Williams stated she had been told by Ken Rawlinson that all five of the exterior lights could be potentially in violation of code unless they have the light solely remain on their property. Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 6 January 15, 2004 She stated an example is their porch light does leave their property. Mrs. Williams stated that the sodium lighting on garages some people have leaves their property. Mrs. Williams stated she had some examples of lighting on a CD that she could show and would like to have it explained to her, the difference in lights that people have on their homes and how they could be in violation, but everyone on her street that has the same type of lights they do, are not in violation. Mr. Williams stated that he doubted there was anyone trained in the code department that could accurately determine what brightness a light is and be accurate. Mr. Williams stated that lighting is rated either in foot-candles or lumens, which in the City of Euless there is no respect for those values. Mrs. Williams stated that the only value in Euless is in Section 84-201 which is for commercial use and not residential. Mrs. Williams stated the city used this reference for the citation they were issued. Chairman Blood closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Stover asked why she would be required to have a fence when she has a 4 foot retaining wall. Chairman Blood stated the 4 foot retaining wall would be sufficient for containing a pet unless it was an extremely large size. Board Member Price stated they were not deliberating about the fence. Chairman Blood stated that if there is a deed restriction that requires them to have an 8 foot fence, it is not the city's responsibility to enforce. If it is a SUP condition listed on the permit or site plan, then the city would have jurisdiction to enforce. Board Member Dube asked Mr. Williams why he had chosen not to make the light a permanent fixture with the problems they have had with animals moving the position of the light. Also, after observing the pictures of the light it appeared to be in a horizontal position. Mr. Williams stated the light was not on in the pictures showing the light. Mr. Williams stated that if the light is moved during the night, there was nothing he could do about it unless he was forewarned. Mr. Williams stated he has taken corrective action on the matter by lowering the wattage. He also stated he called the Code Services Department to have them come out after he lowered the wattage, but they never came out. Vice Chairman Stover asked Mr. Williams why he changed the direction of the light. Mr. Williams stated it was intended to point to the ground. Vice Chairman Stover asked Mr. Williams if he goes out to change the light every day. Mr. Williams stated he did not and makes sure it is pointed to the ground. Chairman Blood asked Mr. Williams why he had not relocated the light to the eave of the structure so animals can not disturb the light. Mr. Williams stated they completed some repairs to the outside of the house in 2002. He stated they had some of the lights Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 7 January 15, 2004 taken down due to the repairs and has not been replaced, due to not being able to pay for an electrician to replace the lights per city code. Chairman Blood asked Mr. Williams if he had installed the light in question. Mr. Williams said the light is plugged into the structure. Chairman Blood asked Mr. Williams how long the light had been there. Mr. Williams stated it had been there off and on since they have lived there. Board Member Price stated that after looking through city ordinances he did not see the specific variance that was being requested. Mike Collins advised Board Member Price that the applicant had been requested to submit a formal request for the variance, but had not supplied the request. Therefore, staff was assuming the performance standard they are requesting a variance from would be directly related to the glare. Board Member Price stated when a variance was submitted there was a specific statement that states what the request is for. This statement has not been provided to the Board. Board Member Price stated he was not sure what they were to be granting. Board Member Price also stated that with the statement, it gives the Board Members a chance to recognize if there was a self created hardship in this case. Board Member Price stated he felt this was a self created hardship because the light could easily be placed on another corner of the property and not create the owner any additional expense. Chairman Blood stated the difference between the light in question and other lighting fixtures, is there has been a complaint filed and the Building Official has determined it to be in violation according to Sec. 84-184(3). Chairman Blood stated the Building Official is also required to show any actions made to comply with these provisions. Chairman Blood stated he has not seen actions made by the Williams to change the glare of the light except for the wattage of the bulb. There have been no actions to relocate the fixture. Chairman Blood stated there was no glare when the fence was in place. Now that the fence has been removed, there is substantial glare from the light causing a problem. Vice Chairman Stover stated if the light were turned in another direction it would illuminate more of the Williams yard than where it is placed at this time. Chairman Blood stated that the fact the light is low to the ground would only shine across to the adjacent property, but if it were mounted high on the house pointing down that would be different. Chairman Blood agrees with Board Member Price that this is a self created hardship. Mike Collins addressed the Board Members by reading directly from the ordinance stating, "In its determination the Board shall consider the following: 1)the magnitude of the nuisance caused by the violation; 2)the uses of property within the area of impingement by the violations; 3)the time factors related to study, design, financing and construction of remedial work; 4)the economic factors related to age and useful life of Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 8 January 15, 2004 the equipment; and 5)the general public interest, welfare and safety. While the Zoning Board of Adjustment does consider other issues, these are the specific considerations identified by the ordinance. Board Member Dube stated it appeared to him that a glare or aggravated condition existed and was caused by Mr. and Mrs. Williams light, either intentionally or unintentionally. Board Member Dube stated the Williams could either remove the glare or ask for a specific variance. Board Member Dube stated the board did not know what the Williams are asking for and needs to be specified. Board Member Dube stated he would have to vote against any type of variance. Chairman Blood asked the Williams to state what the specific variance was they were requesting. Ms. Williams stated they were asked for the variance under Sec. 84- 27(10)(a). Ms. Williams stated they had been wrongfully cited and have answered the three questions in this specific section of the ordinance. Ms. Williams stated they were not asked for a variance to the performance standard because they feel they are being wrongfully accused. Ms. Williams stated there were minimum requirements in the site plan for their community which dictates the type of fencing that is to be installed on the lots. Chairman Blood asked Ms. Williams if she had a copy of the site plan and she stated it was not on file in Tarrant County. Board Member Price asked Ms. Williams what specific variance she was requesting from the performance standards. Ms. Williams stated she was not, that she was asking to be excused from the code violation. Chairman Blood advised Ms. Williams they did not have the authority to withdraw a citation and advised she would have to go through the courts for this to be done. Mike Collins clarified to the Board Members the reference Ms. Williams was making to Sec. 84-27, which is very specific to specific zoning provisions in which they would have the opportunity to come before the board to seek an exception. Mr. Collins stated the formal proceeding for tonight are as a direct consequence of a notice of violation that had been issued under glare. Mr. Collins stated glare is one of several different nuisance categories that also include exterior noise and particulate air contaminates. Mr. Collins stated the board members were here tonight because the Williams had formally requested an exception from the performance standards relating to a notice of violation being issued for a nuisance identified as glare. Therefore, the board can meet based on an application being submitted in which the applicant shall set forth all actions taken to comply with said provisions and reasons why immediate compliance can not be achieved. _ Ms. Williams stated Mr. Collins advised them they could not go before the board until they admitted guilt. Ms. Williams stated they decided they should bring their case to the board under Sec. 84-27(10)(a). Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 9 January 15, 2004 Chairman Blood asked Ms. Williams what they were requesting a variance from. Board Member Dube stated he understands the Williams did not want a variance. He stated they were pursuing this case from the point they had not violated the code. Chairman Blood asked Ken Rawlinson what had transpired since the citation was issued. Mr. Rawlinson stated they have gone before the Municipal Judge and have requested a preliminary trial hearing on February 18, 2004 to decide what type of trial they will pursue. Vice Chairman Stover asked Mr. Rawlinson if the Williams could leave their light the way they want until the judge makes a ruling. Mr. Rawlinson stated Code Services did not have authority to remove the light source until the judge makes a ruling. The citation reads failure to remove directional spot lighting. Chairman Blood asked the Williams if they would be willing to remove the light source. Mr. Williams stated he would not. Mr. Williams stated the light has been off over two months. Mr. Williams stated he was given a citation dated November 11, 2003. He stated the light was extinguished prior to the citation and the date of offense was invalid. Chairman Blood stated that was not in the board members jurisdiction. Board Member Price asked Mr. Williams what the specific request was for. Mr. Williams stated it was for cancellation of the citation. Board Member Price stated the board did not have the authority for that request. Mr. Williams stated the interpretation of the code if for the board to hear this case. Chairman Blood asked Mr. Williams if he wanted them to make a ruling on whether his light was in violation. Mr. Williams stated he did not. Mr. Williams stated he wanted the citation cancelled. Board Member Cornell stated he understood the Williams were requesting for the board to look at Sec. 84-27(10)(a). He asked Mr. Williams if his contention was the citation was an error of an order. Mr. Williams stated that was correct. Board Member Cornell stated the board must find the following in order to grant such an appeal: that there is a reasonable difference of interpretation as to the specific intent of the zoning regulations. Board Member Cornell stated the board members would all have to be in agreement as to the intent of the zoning and they would agree it would be to not create a nuisance. Board Member Cornell stated he did not feel the request falls under this section of the code. Mike Collins stated the request does not relate to Sec. 84-27 because it does not follow the guidelines of a specific zoning issue. This is a nuisance that is subject to the Zoning Board of Adjustment consideration of whether or not there could be conditions under which that nuisance could continue. Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 10 January 15, 2004 Board Member Dube stated they could take a vote on whether this light causes the nuisance. Chairman Blood stated he could not approve a variance that would allow a light creating glare on an adjacent residential property under any circumstances. Mike Collins asked Ms. Sahm if the light has been turned back on since November 11, 2003 as Mr. Williams indicated. Ms. Sahm stated the light had not been there for the last 9 years. She stated the light was put up approximately 4-5 months ago. Vice Chairman Stover stated Mr. Williams had said the light had been there for over 14 years. Ms. Sahm stated it had not. Board Member Price made a motion to deny case #04-01-ZBA. Vice Chairman Stover seconded the motion. Board Member Dube asked for a change to the motion. Chairman Blood made a motion to deny making any change to the performance standards for glare on adjacent properties in the zoning ordinance. Board Member Price seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Chairman Blood, Vice Chairman Stover, Board Members Stover, Cornell and Price Nays: N one Abstention: None The motion carried (5-0-0). Adjournment: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. , 6/ L`/ " Z - Chairman Victor Blood Date