Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ZBA_05.18.2010Minutes of the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, May 18, 2010 The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Tuesday , May 18, 2010. Members Present: Leo Wood, Chair, Tom Crawford, Vice-Chair/Secretary, Dustin Elliott, Ellen Davis, Ercel Brashear Members Absent: Staff Present: Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie Kreger, Principal Planner; Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; Candice McDonald, Recording Secretary; Julie McCartney, Chief Code Enforcement Officer; John Hale, Code Enforcement Officer Minutes Regular Meeting Call to order: 6:00 p.m. (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. No Executive Session. 2.Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the regular Board of Adjustment meeting on April 20, 2010. Motion by Brashear to approve the April 20 minutes with amendments. Second by Elliott. Crawford abstained. Approved (4-0, 1 abstained) 3.Consideration and possible action on a Special Exception for Setback Modification to allow a detached carport to be constructed within the required setback for Clamp’s Addition Revised, Block B (sw/pt), 0.14 acres, located at 601 E. 8 th Street. SE-2010-001 (RW) *Public Hearing held and item tabled at the April 20 th meeting. Wyler stated that HARC approved the demolition of the previous structure with a vote of 4-2 with no conditions. At the April 20 th meeting, ZBA had inquired about the access easement, named as Tract 2 on the plat. After further research with the Georgetown Utility Department, it was discovered that the easement was a utility and access easement which was going to be turned into a street at one point in time . The City Council later abandoned the access easement but maintained the public utility easement for possible future lay out of utilities. If ZBA were to grant the Special Exception, the applicant would still need to complete one of two processes. The applicant can either apply for a License to Encroach over the utility easement or the applicant can apply for an Abandonment of the easement. Brashear discussed that there are two concerns with the application. The first is the application is imminently practical but does not fit any rules. The building encroaches into a setback, which is a title problem and a technical issue that must be addressed. The property cannot be conveyed without the City’s blessing and that blessing does not come from the Board of Adjustments. The Board of Adjustments does not have the ability to approve the Special Exception because the UDC states that one of the limitations on the board is it may not grant a variance when the effect of which is the establishment of a use not otherwise permitted in the applicable Zoning District or to extend physically a nonconforming use of the land. ZBA shall consider these criteria, but if it’s solely a matter of convenience no Special Exception may be granted. It is rational to say let the applicant build the structure , but the rules the board has to uphold won’t allow approval . The Special Exception provisions state that if there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without obtaining a Special Exception, no Special Exception shall be granted. Wood questioned whether or not an application needed to be submitted and approved for the release of the Utility Easement. After and if the application is approved, can the Special Exception be brought back to ZBA. Wyler stated that is up to the applicant if they would like to apply for the Abandonment or the License to Encroach. One solution is to table the item and have the applicant look into this matter. The City would then issue the License to Encroach, which would give the City the right to tell the applicant to move the structure in the event it needed to lay utilities. Brashear stated that the structure is an encroachment and in violation of zoning rules. Davis stated that there is still adequate room on the property to place a garage and be legal. If the applicant is granted a Special Exception, it would strictly be a convenience and that is not what ZBA is permitted to do. Crawford questioned whether, if the City was to approve an encroachment on the easement, this would have to go back to ZBA. Wittie discussed that if the building has to be torn down it would not be rebuilt anywhere on the property due to finances. Wood asked what would be the next process if there are no finances to demolish the structure, whom would be responsible for the demolition. McCartney discussed that the course of action would be to take the owner of the structure to court if not removed. The judge would then decide if a violation had occurred. If a violation did occur then the judge would order the structure to be removed. The City would then remove the structure and put a lien on the property . Wood stated that a solution would be to tear down and rebuild the structure to where it would be a conforming structure. Elliott discussed that this is a matter of a zoning issue and is convenient to the applicant. The matter of convenience is not the purpose of the Board. Cook requested the Board to go into an Executive Session per the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551. Wood states that there will be a recess to have an executive session. There was no action taken at the Executive Session. Regular session convened at 6:28. Motion by Davis for denial of the Special Exception application based on UDC Section 4.09.040.B.1 stating if the proposed setback modification is solely a matter of convenience, no Special Exception shall be granted. Second by Brasher. Approved (5-0) 4.Training and discussion regarding the role of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Kreger discussed the role and the by-laws of ZBA. Chapters 2, 3, and 14 of the UDC were also presented to the Board. 5.Adjourn. Motion by Brashear to adjourn . Second by Crawford.