Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 2006-03-23 Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS MARCH 23, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tom Duer at 7:21 p.m. ROLL CALL Present Chairman Alternate Tom Duer Leslie Jauregui Jerry Henry Beth Davis Fonda Kunkel Jim Kemp Absent Alternate Roy Sculley City Staff Building Official Recording Secretary Dave Pendley Holly Blake 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FROM JANUARY 26, 2006 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING. APPROVED Leslie Jauregui, seconded by Jerry Henry, motioned to approve the minutes from January 26, 2006. The motion was carried unanimously (5-0). CHAIRMAN TOM DUER EXPLAINED THE VOTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. ANY REQUEST THAT GOES BEFORE THIS BOARD MUST RECEIVE A SUPER MAJORITY (75%). THIS BOARD IS A 5 MEMBER VOTING BOARD. FOR ANY VARIANCE TO PASS IT MUST RECEIVE 4 AFFIRMATIVE VOTES. Page 1 of 4 3/23/06 ZBA Minutes 4. BA 2006-02 PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM DAVID BRADLEY FOR A 6-FT. VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM SIDE BUILDING LINE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 118-313 OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CODE OF ORDINANCES. DENIED Chairman Duer opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. David Bradley, 6821 Moss Lane, came forward. He explained that on the side of the house is a covering that was built about ten years ago. It was built to keep the children and pets separated. A dog run was built with a fence towards the middle of the side of the house and a fence at the back of the house with a covering for some shade from the elements. After the dogs passed away the dog run and covering became a storage area. He stated that as a homeowner he assumed that the contractor did everything he was supposed to do with the City. Mr. Bradley passed out pictures. From the front of the house there is a tree and beyond that is a bay window and just past the bay window is a fence and gate. Beyond that the pictures show the roof structure. From the back side of the house the pictures show the fencing that was put in and it goes up to where the top of the structure is. On the top left side there is a window to the left and then there is a roof line and a tarp on top. It was placed there to keep the animals out of the elements. It can be pulled aside to give free access to everything. It is currently used for storage of yard tools and trash cans. When the structure was built the contractor explained that if a permanent structure is built it would need walls like a barn, but if it is tied into the fence post it would be ok. It hasn't been a problem for the last ten years until now. It was explained to me by Staff that it was complained about by some neighbors. Chairman Duer explained to the applicant that the pictures that are being passed out will be kept by the City and placed in the file. Ms. Jauregui asked the applicant how long he has lived at this house. Mr. Bradley answered that he purchased the house 12 years ago. Mr. Henry asked the applicant if he had provided the plot plan. Are there any other structures in the back that are not shown on the plot plan? Mr. Bradley responded that yes he provided the plot plan but no there are no other structures in the back yard. Mr. Henry stated that it appears that the roof goes over the fence and dumps water onto the neighbor's yard. Mr. Bradley stated the gutter was placed on the Page 2 of 4 3/23/06 ZBA Minutes edge so that it wouldn't do that. Ms. Davis asked if the gutter was hanging over the fence. Mr. Henry responded that it wasn't and asked the applicant about the down spout. Mr. Bradley stated that it is on the back side under the covering. Dave Pendley passed out aerial photos of the property. The first photo is from late 1996. It shows the absence of the roof. The third photo is from late 2000. The second photo is from 2005. The second and third photos do show the roof in question. Mr. Pendley explained that if the variance is granted, a building permit has to be issued. The building code prohibits openings (windows, carports, or the absence of windows) when a structure is closer than 3-ft. to the property line. If this variance is granted, the applicant, as part of his building permit, will have to build a solid one hour rated wall without any openings. That would consist of at least 2 sheets of 5/8" gypsum board on the framing to provide the fire protection to the neighboring property. Mr. Pendley stated that staff cannot support this request due to the fire protection issue as well as privacy issues of having a workable appendage on the house on the property line. The hardship appears to be self imposed. Phil Norris, 6825 Moss Lane, came forward. Mr. Norris stated that he opposes the variance as the structure is a fire hazard. It is tied into the fence post. The posts can't be replaced without affecting the structure. Also there are other structures located in Mr. Bradley's yard. There are laws that must be abided by as a taxpayer. We elect officials that enforce them. Mr. Norris passed out photos to the Board. Chairman Duer explained to Mr. Norris that all pictures have to be kept for the file. Ms. Jauregui confirmed that Mr. Norris lives next door. Ms. Jauregui asked Mr. Norris how long he had lived next door. This structure has been there for ten years. What has changed since you have lived next door? Mr. Norris responded that he had lived next door for seven years. The structure is not very appealing. There are rodent issues. Mr. Norris had an addition built onto his house and the contractor mentioned that the structure In Mr. Bradley's yard was not up to code. Ms. Jauregui asked Mr. Norris if he has had to replace the fence or posts yet and if so if there were any problems? Mr. Norris responded that he has replaced some panels but there were no problems. Ms. Davis asked if the fence was something that is maintained jointly and when the fence was replaced were the posts also replaced? Mr. Norris answered that he purchased the fence and the posts are the original posts. John Swakas, 6824 Hickory Hollow Lane, came forward. Mr. Swakas believes that the structure is a rodent magnet and that it causes drainage problems. Page 3 of 4 3/23/06 ZBA Minutes Ms. Kunkel stated that she doesn't believe the structure is the cause for rodents. Rodents happen everywhere. Chairman Duer explained that this Board is only looking at the variance for the encroachment on the side building line. The Chairman asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in regards to BA 2006-02. Being none, Chairman Duer closed the public hearing. Mr. Bradley stated that there is no greater fire hazard with his structure than if the same items were stored against the fence. This is not a permanent structure; it is a covering that has a fence on one side and a removable tarp on the other side. Mr. Henry stated that the actual restrictions require 6-ft. side setbacks in R-3 zoning. In order for this Board to grant this variance, the Board must have a finding of fact on four cases; a) literal enforcement of the controls both created unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty in the development of the affected property, b) the situation causing the hardship or difficulty is neither self imposed nor generally affecting all or most properties in the same zoning district, c) the relief asked for will not injure the permitted use of adjacent conforming properties, and d) the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the spirit and purposes of these regulations. This Board would have to find in favor of all four of those. Jerry Henry, seconded by Beth Davis, motioned to deny BA 2006-02 based on this Board: 1) does not find that the literal enforcement creates an unnecessary hardship; 2) the hardship was self imposed, 3) the relief that is being asked for actually does appear to injure the property surrounding the applicant, and 4) by granting the variance it would not be in harmony with the spirit or purpose of these regulations. The motion was carried unanimously (5-0). Chairman Duer explained that any decision that is made by this Board can be appealed to the State District Court within ten days. 5. ADJOURNMENT Having no additional business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m. Chairman 07 / I (y":",., ."" "\./" -'" Tom Duer .()~- Page 4 of 4 3/23/06 ZBA Minutes