HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ZBA_07.18.2006Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 18, 2006 Page 1 of 5
City of Georgetown
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting
Minutes
July 18, 2006, at 6:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Members present: William Moore, Chair; Earl Watson, Vice Chair; Jim Jarvis, Richard Vasquez III
Alternates present: Patrick Lawson
Members absent: Steven Lampinstein, Dale Ross, and Ann Snell
Staff present: Jennifer Bills, Planner; Barbara Quirk, acting City Attorney and Karen Frost,
Recording Secretary.
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: 6:05 p.m. by Chair Moore.
(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 no executive session.
2. Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the regular Board of Adjustment
meeting of the May 16, 2006, meeting.
Motion by Watson to approve the minutes. Second by Vasquez. Approved 5 - 0.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 18, 2006 Page 2 of 5
3. Public hearing to Consider the approval of the expansion of a nonconforming land use to
allow for the expansion of a lawnmower repair business within a residentially zoned district
for 0.30 acres in City of Georgetown, Division C, Outlot 22, also known as Bobby Jennings
Small Engine Repair, located at 305 E. 4th Street. (VAR-2006-011)
Staff report was given by Jennifer Bills. This residential property was purchased by the
applicant in 1995. At the time of purchase, the development on the lot consisted of a single
family residential house and two accessory structures. In 1999, one of the accessory structures,
192 square feet in size located on the east side of the property, was torn down and replaced
with a larger metal sided accessory structure of 512 square feet. Also owned by the applicant is
the adjacent property to the north, 302 E. 3rd Street which is the location of Georgetown
Outdoor Power, Inc., also doing business as Bobby Jennings Small Engine Sales & Service. The
engine repair shop was constructed and began operation around 1970, before zoning districts
were in place that would have restricted the property to residential uses only. Under the
current zoning use regulations, a business of this nature, Minor Vehicle Service, would only be
permitted in C-3, General Commercial and IN-Industrial districts. Under the Unified
Development Code, Section 14.03, this business is considered a “Legal nonconforming land
use” and can remain on the residentially zoned property for as long as it continually operates
as the same type of business.
In August 2002, the City began receiving complaints from surrounding property owners that
residential property was being used by the adjacent commercial business for storage. Small
engines and other shop related equipment was being stored in the front, back and side yards.
After working with the city and the adjacent property owner, a temporary solution was agreed
upon to give the applicant time to find a more permanent solution. This solution allowed the
applicant to have storage on the back half of the property, on the residential lot, behind a six
foot wooden privacy fence. The house was used as a residential rental property until January
2004, when the house was partially destroyed by fire. The house remained uninhabitable and,
after complaints about the lack of action to either demolish the remaining structure or rebuild
the house, the owner began reconstruction of the house in August 2005. The house is not
complete to date.
The applicant is requesting that the engine repair business, a nonconforming commercial land
use, (14.03 UDC) be allowed to expand onto his residential property to the south. The
expansion would allow the existing business to use the backyard of the residential property to
store lawnmowers and other similar equipment that is repaired at the shop. Staff recommends
denial of the request, based on the findings of fact that were given to the Board.
Jarvis questioned the implications of the city allowing the property to be misused. Quirk
responded that there were no rights of the property owner attached to the illegal use and that
the property is not rezoned because a use is allowed to exist for a certain amount of time. Bills
stated that she would recommend a period for removal of the business that would be agreed
upon by City Code Enforcement.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 18, 2006 Page 3 of 5
The applicant’s attorney and agent, Bill Connor was asked to speak. He introduced himself
and explained that he and the applicant understand it is a continuance of use that they are
requesting. He explained that the business is divided into three parts: those machines that are
waiting to be repaired, those machines that have been repaired and are waiting for pick-up,
and those machines that can’t be repaired and are waiting for pick-up. He also explained that
this business provides a livelihood to 8 families and is a 35 year old business.
Jarvis and Watson asked clarifying questions of Mr. Connor.
Chair Moore opened the Public Hearing.
Tina Spencer of 311 E 4th Street stated she was opposed to the expansion. She was aware of the
owner’s hardships and glad his business had grown, but that growth was affecting the
historical neighborhood’s quality of life.
Kay Summers of 309 E 4th Street spoke and stated she was not without compassion for Mr.
Jennings, but she was told the fence agreement was supposed to be temporary fix and not a
permanent solution.
Rebecca Pfeister, building a home at 4th and Elm Street, stated that two wrongs (done by the
Jennings) did not make a right and she felt that allowing the business to expand would be
detrimental to the neighborhood.
Moore closed the Public Hearing and thanked the speakers. The Board deliberated the issues
and the comments made.
Motion by Watson to deny the request for the expansion of a nonconforming land use
within a residentially zoned district for 0.30 acres in the City of Georgetown, Division C, Outlot
22, also known as Bobby Jennings Small Engine Repair, located at 305 E 4th Street, based on the
finding of fact noted by staff. Second by Lawson. Motion approved to deny the request, 5-0.
Moore stated he wanted to make sure the applicant understood that the request was based on
the board’s decision that this business was not acceptable for a residential neighborhood.
4. Public hearing to Consider a Variance from Section 7.03.040 C of the Unified Development
Code (UDC) requiring a minimum rear setback of 5 feet for an accessory structure and Table
6.02.030 of the UDC requiring a 10 foot side setback, to allow an existing storage building to
encroach 2 feet into the rear setback and 6.5 feet into the side setback for Lot 10, Block Q,
River Ridge, Section 2-A, located at 110 South Ridge Circle. (VAR-2006-012)
Jennifer Bills gave the staff report. This property was built in 1984, when the River Ridge
subdivision was first being developed. According to the applicant, the house at 110 South
Ridge Circle was originally a model home for the single family residential subdivision. The
accessory structure in the northwest corner of the lot was built when the model home was
constructed as a storage building for construction and real estate signs. The building did not
have a building permit issued. A survey prepared to allow for the sale of the property
revealed that the accessory structure was encroaching 2 feet into the rear setback and 6.5 feet
into the side setback, as well as into a deeded public utility easements (PUE). Licenses are
being sought from the City for the PUE encroachments. In 1996, when the current owner
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 18, 2006 Page 4 of 5
applied for a fence permit from the City he was incorrectly told that the structure was
considered a legal nonconforming structure.
The applicant is seeking a variance from the Unified Development Code requirements to allow
the accessory to remain approximately 3 feet from the rear property line and 4 feet from the
northwest side property line. Without the variance the structure would have to be moved to
conform to existing setbacks or removed. Staff recommends approval of the variance.
Virginia Lazenby, the agent for the applicants, spoke on their behalf. She requested the
variance based on the fact that this situation has existed for 20 years without issue, and was
only a problem when her clients tried to do the right thing by getting a fence permit.
Moore opened the Public Hearing. No one signed up to speak. Moore closed the Hearing and
opened the floor for board discussion. There was none.
Motion by Jarvis to approve the requested variance from the Unified Development Code
Section 7.03.040 C requiring a 5 foot rear setback and Table 6.02.030 requiring a 10 foot side
setback, for Block Q, River Ridge, Section 2-A, located at 110 South Ridge Circle, based on the
findings of fact identified by staff. Second by Vasquez. Approved 5 – 0.
5. Public hearing to Consider a Variance from Section 7.03.040 A of the Unified Development
Code (UDC) to allow a garage to be built with a 10 foot side setback where a 20 foot side
setback is required, for a section of Lot 8, Block 3 in the Logan Addition, located at 1603
Main Street. (VAR-2006-013)
Jennifer Bills gave the staff report. The house on this lot was built around 1900. The lot is
9,200 square feet in size, with 611 square feet occupied by the neighboring property owner’s
carport. The single-family residential house, approximately 1,650 square feet, is situated in the
middle of the lot facing Main Street. A garage had been in the same location proposed for the
new garage but was in disrepair and had to be removed. Previous development guidelines
would have allowed the applicant to replace the garage in the same location and setback as
adjacent properties.
The street right-of-way for 16th Street is approximately 20 feet wider on the southern side than
the actual street pavement width. The intent of the 20 foot setback is to keep cars from parking
on a driveway within the right-of-way, too close to the street. With the 20 feet of right-of-way
and the proposed 10 foot setback, the garage would be 30 feet from the street curb.
The applicant is requesting that the side yard setback requirement of 20 feet for a corner lot be
reduced to 10 feet in order to build a new detached garage. Taking into account the size of the
lot and location of the house, it is impossible to set the garage 20 feet from the property line.
The garage will face and take driveway access off 16th Street. Staff recommends approval of the
variance.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, July 18, 2006 Page 5 of 5
Board asked clarifying questions that were answered by Bills. The applicant was present and
board members were complimentary of the remodel work that was completed at this time.
Motion by Watson to approve the requested Variance from Section 7.03.040 A of the Unified
Development Code (UDC) to allow a garage to be built with a 10 foot side setback where a
20 foot side setback is required, for a section of Lot 8, Block 3 in the Logan Addition,
located at 1603 Main Street, based on the findings of fact noted by staff. Second by Lawson.
Approved 5 – 0.
6. Comments from Board. Chair Moore complimented and thanked Bills for her work on the
staff reports and findings of fact, stating that it made the Boards job much easier.
7. Comments from Director. None.
Moore adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
__________________________________ _______________________________
Approved, Will Moore, Chair Attest, Earl Watson
