03/19/1998-BOA-Minutes-RegularI
MINUTES: Board of Adjustment
March 19, 1998
PRESENT: Ben Weatherall, Allen Sweeney, Francile Sullivan, Andy Garza
ABSENT: Fred Yeatts, Russell Madden, Sam Burrus
OTHERS
PRESENT: City Secretary Rosalie Chavez, Street Supt./Building Inspector Chuck Tucker,
Bill Williams
1. Acting Chairperson Ben Weatherall Called the Meeting to Order.
2. Approve Minutes.
Minutes not available yet. City Secretary advised they would be available for Approval
at the next board meeting.
3. Conduct Public Hearing to Consider a Variance Request from Lot Line, on property
legally described as Original Town Sanger, Block 9, Lots 1 and 2 (S 100' of each), and
Lot 3 (S 90.8' of), also known as 201 Elm, and 213-217 Elm.
Chairperson Weatherall Declared Public Hearing Opened.
City Secretary addressed the board advising them that Donald Tuttle was wanting to
build 30' onto his lot line. City Secretary again advised that she had contacted City
Attorney, and he advised that Mr. Tuttle did not have to replat this property. Mr.
Neiman indicated that a variance needed to be granted if he wanted to go over the lot
line since Mr. Tuttle owned the entire lot (block).
Ben Weatherall inquired as to which building was he adding on to since he noticed
three buildings in that location with no space between them. Donald Tuttle indicated
that the small building beside the bigger building will be torn down to add on to the
existing business structure.
Allen Sweeney asked a question as to why someone had to request a variance to build
to a lot line over it if they owned the entire lot(s).
City Secretary advised that it was due to restrictions placed by the Planning and
Zoning in our ordinance.
Andy Garza asked what is the difference to have zero lot line on one and zero lot line
on the other?
Chuck Tucker advised that the business adjoins a residential property, and residential
I
property can not have zero lot line.
BOA MINUTES
03/19/98
PAGE2
The residential lot is 87.5 feet wide, and Mr. Tuttle is going to use 30 feet of that lot
leaving a frontage of 52.5 feet.
Mr. Tuttle indicated he also wants to use part of the back as a driveway to come back
to his business.
City Secretary also indicated that the City Attorney advised that if the property ever
sold, then the property would have to be replatted.
Ben Weatherall asked if there would be any problem with any easement or drainage
or any underground service that might be on the property.
Chuck Tucker indicated he did not know; however, Mr. Tuttle indicated there were no
utilities buried under that property.
Chairperson Weatherall Declared the Public Hearing Closed.
4. Consider and Possible Action to Approve Variance Request from Lot Line, on property
legally described as Original Town Sanger, Block 9, Lots 1 and 2 (S 100' of each), and
Lot 3 (S 90.8' ot), also known as 201 Elm and 213-217 Elm.
Motion was made by Allen Sweeney to Grant Variance Request. Seconded by Francile
Sullivan.
Motion Carried unanimously.
5. Conduct Public Hearing to Consider a Variance Request for Property Setbacks on Lot
24R, Block C, Willowood Addition, known as 308 Primrose Drive.
Chairperson Weatherall Declared Public Hearing Opened.
Bill Williams addressed the board indicating that about a year ago an architect was
hired to draw plans for that lot who went by the plans given to him by the developer.
The restrictions he was given were different than what the City required. The plans
were drawn with 15 foot boundaries instead of the 20 feet required by the City on a side
street. The plans for the house were drawn to fit the lot. His request was a variance
of 7 feet from 8 feet on the interior lot line, or else he could move it one foot west to
give it the 8 feet required setback and reduce the 20 feet to 14 feet on the side. This
setback would eliminate one variance request.
I
Issues and concerns addressed were:
(a) This is a new subdivision.
BOA MINUTES
03/19/98
PAGE3
(b) If the variance is granted, what would keep other builders from coming in and
requesting similar requests.
(c) Concern over the building and use restrictions that are being given to the
developers.
(d) Concern was that the builder had already incurred an expense by being given
information that was not correct.
Chuck Tucker, Building Inspector, indicated his major concern was that it was a brand
new subdivision, and if we begin to grant variances at the beginning what is to keep
other builders from requesting the same, and then our ordinances in place get "blown
out of the water" in regards to subdivision restrictions. Chuck expressed that he
understood the circumstances in the fact that Mr. Williams was given the wrong
information; however, he was concerned as to the outcome if the variance was granted.
City Secretary indicated that she agreed with Chuck in the fact that Mr. Williams was
not at fault as he was led to believe that certain building and use restrictions applied
to that subdivision that were not correct.
City Secretary advised that Mr. Krammer has been written a letter and advised that
his building and use restrictions do not apply to that subdivision, however, this is after
the fact. City Secretary indicated the board could make a ruling that if they decided
to· grant the variance for Mr. Williams that in the future all building needs to conform
to the subdivision requirements.
Mr. Williams was put in a situation that he was led to believe something that was not
true, and it was not until he came for his building permit that he found out different.
Mr. Williams advised these restrictions he was given by the developer are recorded in
the County Clerks' office.
Discussion followed.
City Secretary advised that even if this variance is granted the board needs to make it
clear that this is a "one time only" consideration, and that this new subdivision with
building restrictions and future requests by builders for variances will not be
considered.
Ben Weatherall asked how can they make sure if the Board of Adjustment goes on
I
record by stating this, and based on their "charter" each request must be considered
independently without consideration or precedence; that in the future someone from
the subdivision does not come in and request a variance during initial construction or
15 or 20 years from now when they want to remodel that someone does not forget what
action has been taken by this board.
BOA MINUTES
03/19/98
PAGE4
City Secretary advised that whatever decision is made it is in the minutes and there can
also be something placed in the original Plat of Record in our office to reflect the
decision made by the Board. City Secretary indicated that when Planning and Zoning
adopted a plat that plat has to conform to setback requirements and easement
restrictions.
Lengthy discussion followed and the following concerns were addressed:
(a) Issue was to contact City Attorney for clarification.
(b) Postpone the action and close the public hearing.
(c) Ask City Attorney to remove whatever restrictions that have been filed.
(d) Grant the variance under "hardship case" due to circumstances already
expensed by Mr. Williams.
Staff made no recommendation for approval or disapproval.
Discussed was moving over one foot and granting for only one variance of 14 feet from
20 feet on the side.
Chairperson Weatherall Declared Public Hearing Closed.
6. Consider and Possible Action to Approve Variance Request for Property Setbacks on
Lot 24R, Block C, Willowood Addition, known as 308 Primrose Drive.
7.
Motion was made by Allen Sweeney to Grant the variance under circumstances and
due to Mr. Williams getting the false information, and that the City proceeds to contact
City Attorney to do legally whatever can be done to keep this from coming back; and
granting a single variance to allow it to be moved one foot giving it 8 feet on interior
line and going with the 14 feet on the one side with the understanding that the City gets
clarification this Board does not have to worry about it in the future. Seconded by
Francile Sullivan.
Motion Carried unanimously.
Any Other Such Matters.
I
City Secretary advised that this board meets again next week.
8. Adjourn.
Motion was made by Francile Sullivan. Seconded by Allen Sweeney.
Motion Carried unanimously.
Approved