HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ZBA_07.16.2002
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
MINUTES
July 16, 2002
Tom Nichols called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Other Board members present were Thomas
Bennett, Michelle Gambino, Ken Fuller, John Kirby, and Audrey McDonald.
Staff members present were Bobby Ray, Chief Planner/Current Planning, and Tammye Sharpe, Recording
Secretary.
1. Action from Executive Session. None.
Agenda:
2. Minutes of the April 16, 2002 meeting and the June 18, 2002, meeting were considered.
Nichols made a correction on the April 16, 2002, minutes to correct the name of the architect - to
be changed from Richard Elsap to Richard Elasser.
Fuller made the motion to approve both minutes, with the noted correction. Bennett seconded the
motion, which passed with a vote of 4-0, with Audrey McDonald and John Kirby abstaining from
voting.
3. Consideration and possible action on a variance to the Zoning Ordinance for the Glasscock
Addition, Block 15, portion of Lots 5 & 6, located at 307 East 6th Street.
Bobby Ray gave staff report, and concluded that the variance request was to seek further
encroachment into the required side yard setback (west side) with the addition of a cover porch.
Ray informed the Board that lot coverage dealt with structures (principal structures, sheds and
shelters).
Gene Browning & Patricia Rowan, applicants and owners, were present. Browning said that
the concrete patio was initially covered when he bought the house, and wanted to cover it
again.
Board Member comments and concerns
Nichols brought out that in Exhibit B, the concrete patio, along with the proposed patio, will be
roofed and screened also. Gambino asked about the public comment from 511 Myrtle
(residents immediately next door- (west) for the variance. Fuller confirmed that there were two
requests – one for the side setback, and the other for lot coverage. McDonald confirmed that
the lot coverage would increase from 41% to a higher percentage now that the concrete patio
was to be screened and roofed. Nichols asked if the applicants could live with the variance
being passed without the 2’ encroachment into the setback. Nichols got confirmation from the
applicant that the large tree in the backyard would not be damaged, and that applicant would
use pier and beam to put structure over the top of the root. Nichols confirmed that there would
be 246’ as proposed patio with covering, instead of the 198’ as indicated in the report. Kirby
stated there was a storage building that virtually goes up to the lot line on t he west side.
Gambino asked why the inspectors did not catch the coverage in the previous variance asked
for in January. Answer was that the side yard and the front yard variances were existing
situations, and the file showed nothing but the variance request.
Kirby moved to authorize the variance request for Glasscock Addition, Block 15, portion of Lots
5 & 6, located at 307 East 6th Street;
- as it would not be contrary to the public interest, due to the applicant having the
support of his neighbor, and
- because a strict enforcement of the provision of the ordinance would result
in unnecessary hardship to this applicant because he could not have the
size of patio he wished to have; and
- such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial
justice done, without any limitations.
Bennett second the motion. Nichols asked for discussion. Gambino was not in agreement with
the motion, and asked that the applicant stay within the required 7’ side yard, stating that this
would serve the purpose of what the applicant was looking for, and also deals with the lot
coverage issue. Fuller, in agreement with Gambino, said that in the sense the applicant was
creating the hardship, and the variance would confer upon the applicant a special right or
privilege not commonly shared, he felt like a variance should be granted for the coverage, but
not for the variance on the side yard setback. Kirby stated that he didn’t see that the 2’ would
really make much of a difference, and still wanted to grant the variances. McDonald got
confirmation that there was 6’ to 8’ allowance for access to the backyard in case of an
emergency.
Kirby amended his motion to deny the 2’ encroachment into the required 7’ side yard, but to
allow for the coverage increase, based on the following findings:
- As it will not be contrary to the public interest, as neighbor is supportive; and
- the applicant has created the hardship from which relief is sought; and
- the variance will not confer upon the applicant a special right or privilege not
commonly shared or available to the owners or similar and surrounding
property; and
- such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice
done
Amended motion was seconded by Bennett, and this motion passed with a vote of 6-0.
2. Consideration and possible action on a variance to the Zoning Ordinance for the East 19th
Street at Hutto Road, Lot 9, located at 1504 East 19th Street.
Bobby Ray gave staff presentation, concluding that the building could be moved out of the 7’
rear setback, and be located to the SE corner of the lot.
Applicant, Thomas Dan Delleny, said that Thunderbird homes owns all the land around him,
including the lot behind him. He told the Board that he has a 4’ French fence that has the
poles 2’ in the ground in his backyard area. Delleny showed the Board the location of his fence
for their consideration.
Board Member comments and concerns
Kirby wanted to know if the building in questions was on skids. Kirby felt like the applicant
could pull the building to where it should be. Gambino confirmed from applicant that he would
lose a parking space if the building was moved, and that the building was to be used as a
storage building. Kirby was interested in knowing if Lot 17, at the South of Lot 9, was a building
site. Bennett got confirmation from the applicant that the skids were running the long way
under the storage building. Bennett made a suggestion to the applicant to slide the building
over with a crane.
Gambino made the motion to deny the variance, based on the following findings:
- as it would be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special
conditions, and
- because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result
in an unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and
- such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice
done.
Gambino went on to say that the applicant has created the hardship south, and feels that he needs to
move the building instead of granting the variance. Ken Fuller seconded the motion, whic h passed
with a vote of 6-0. Variance was denied.
McDonald made the motion to adjourn. Bennett seconded. The vote was unanimous. Meeting was
adjourned at 7:32 p.m.
/tas