HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ZBA_12.20.2005Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, December 20, 2005 Page 1 of 3
City of Georgetown
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting
Minutes
December 20, 2005, at 6:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Members present: Danny Swafford, Chair; Earl Watson, Vice Chair; William Moore; Jim Jarvis;
Patrick Lawson
Members absent: Ann Snell, Richard Vasquez III
Staff present: Bobby Ray, Director, Planning & Development; Dave Hall, Building Official; Karen
Frost, Recording Secretary; Barbara Quirk, representing City Attorney.
This is a regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Georgetown. The Board,
appointed by the Mayor and the City Council, acts on requests for variances, interpretations and
special exceptions under the Georgetown Zoning Ordinance.
Order of Hearing Process:
Staff makes a presentation of the project to the Board;
The applicant is provided an opportunity to present their project to the Board;
The Board asks questions of both Staff and the applicant;
*The Public Hearing is open, and both proponents and opponents are allowed to speak;
The Public Hearing is closed and the Board deliberates on the merits of the case; and,
The Board generates findings to support their decision, a motion is made and seconded, and
a vote is taken on the motion presented.
Variance approvals require an affirmative vote of 4 members of the Board.
* Those who speak please identify yourselves for the meeting record.
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 6:00 p.m.
Call to order: 6:02 p.m.
Chair Swafford led the Pledge of Allegiance
(The Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the
request of the Chair, a Board Member, the Director or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by
the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551.)
1. Action from Executive Session. There was not an Executive Session.
2. Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the regular Zoning Board of Adjustment
meeting of the November 15, 2005.
Motion by Moore to approve the minutes. Second by Watson. Approved 5-0.
Chair Swafford asked for consideration of a nomination for the open Secretary position.
Nomination by Watson to elect Will Moore as Secretary of the Board. Second by Lawson.
Moore was elected 5-0.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, December 20, 2005 Page 2 of 3
3. Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of an Administrative Decision rejecting an application for
a sign permit on the basis that the off-premise portable sign would violate the City Sign Ordinance
codified at Chapter 10 of the Unified Development Code (UDC).
Chair Swafford opened the public hearing. Bobby Ray presented the staff report. On September 26,
2005 an application was made to the City to allow the placement of a sign on Highway 29, within
the City’s extra-territorial jurisdiction. The proposed sign was an off-premise, portable
advertisement for a RV Park located on East View Road. City staff determined that the sign was not
allowed per the Unified Development Code, specifically Section 10.04 and informed the applicant
of such in a letter dated September 28, 2005.
In response to the letter, the applicant prepared a request for an “Appeal of an Administrative
Decision”, appealing staff’s interpretation of Sections 10.01 through 10.07 of the UDC, and in
particular, the language, “in the city” found in Section 10.04.
Staff recommends affirmation of the administrative decision. This is based on the contention that
both the “applicability” section of 3.01.020, the “Jurisdiction” section of 10.01.040 (and subsection
A,4 of that Section), the “Sign Permit” section of 3.18 and the table of permitted uses in Section 10.02
clearly establish that it is the intent of the Code to apply the sign standards at issue in both the City
Limits and the ETJ. This has been the manner in which the sign code has been implemented since
adoption of the UDC in 2003, and under the prior Sign Code adopted in 1993.
Ray further stated that in addition to the Sections discussed previously, other Sections of the sign
regulations show that any reading other than the one contemplated here would not make sense.
Section 10.01.030 (Exhibit H) states that: “The effect of this Section is to prohibit all signs not
expressly permitted by this Section, except as approved through the appeals process established by
this Code”. If the appellant’s contention regarding the jurisdiction of prohibited signs were to be
accepted, based upon the above-referenced section, the City could still not issue a sign permit. The
signs requested (off-premise and portable) are not expressly permitted anywhere within the UDC,
for any type of zoning. If the City were to accept the sign permit application for these signs the
action by staff would result in a denial of the permit request.
Section 3.18 grants the Building Official the authority to take final action on sign permits. The
“Criteria for Approval” of 3.18.030 (A) (Exhibit G) states that final action by the Building Official
shall be based on the following criteria: “Whether the intended sign conforms in all respects with
all applicable development regulations and standards of this Unified Development Code and any
applicable construction or safety standards of the City’s adopted building code”. Since the subject
sign is expressly prohibited by the Sign Code there are no “development regulations” and / or”
standards” that are applicable to these signs. So therefore the Building Official could not issue a
sign permit since a determination of conformance with “regulations and “standards” cannot be
established.
Pursuant to Section 3.14 (Exhibit I) the Board has the authority to “reverse or affirm, in whole or in
part, or modify the administrative officials order, requirement, decision or determination from
which an appeal is taken and make the correct order, requirement, decision or determination,
and to that purpose the Board has the same authority as the administrative official”. This
procedure presumes that the Director’s decision is valid (Section 3.14.030.B.) and the burden of
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, December 20, 2005 Page 3 of 3
proof to justify a reversal of the decision is on the appellant. A vote to overturn an
administrative decision requires a three-fourths vote of all members (4 total).
Barbara Quirk, on behalf of the City Attorney spoke and explained the Code specifically, in
Section 10.01.040 subsection A states that the sign standards, specifically the jurisdiction, apply
to all areas within the corporate limits of the City of Georgetown and those areas within the
extraterritorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, 10.01.040A, subsection 4 states “any area within 250
feet of an arterial (major or minor) or a freeway right-of-way must meet all sign regulations that
apply within the C-3 Zoning District”. This specifically applies to this case. The reason the Sign
Ordinance is specifically set up this way because there isn’t zoning in the ETJ. Just because the
language of 10.01.040 uses “in the City”, the application of the C-3 Zoning District sign
regulations would still prohibit the off-premise, portable sign that is proposed.
Steve Kulback was asked to speak. He said he was unprepared but that he would make an
attempt. He stated that he does everything he can to obey the law and that this interpretation
should be left to attorneys and a judge. He just wants to run his business for the betterment of
Georgetown. He feels he should be allowed to park his trailer on another property to advertise
his business in the ETJ, without a permit and because other businesses are allowed to advertise
on their vehicles all over town.
The Board discussed the issue. Moore stated he appreciated the attorneys comments that made
it a clear decision for him. Jarvis questioned the applicant on the purpose of the trailer. He
asked if it was meant to be a sign and was it on another landowner’s property. The applicant
said yes to both questions. Jarvis asked the applicant if he had pursued other methods of
advertising his business. The applicant stated no he hadn’t. Jarvis questioned the attorney if the
City had the jurisdiction to make this decision. Quirk replied that yes, by state statute, home
rule cities had the authority to make their own laws in their city and ETJ.
Motion was made by Jarvis that the appeal be denied, Chair adds “to affirm the decision by
administrative officials and director”. Second by Moore. The decision by administrative
officials and the director was affirmed, 5-0.
Chair Swafford closed the public hearing.
4. Possible other topics for discussion.
Nothing else was discussed.
Motion to adjourn by Watson. Second by Lawson. Meeting adjourned at 6:32 p.m.
_____________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Danny Swafford, Chair Attest, Will Moore, Secretary