HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_ZBA_09.21.2010
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, September 21, 2010 Page 1 of 5
City of Georgetown
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting
Minutes
September 21, 2010 at 6:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
101 E. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Members: Leo Wood, Chair, Tom Crawford , Vice-chair/Secretary, Dustin Elliott, Ellen Davis,
Ercel Brashear
Absent: NA
Staff Present: Elizabeth Cook, Community Development Director; Valerie Kreger, Principal
Planner; Robbie Wyler, Historic District Planner; David Munk, Development
Engineer, Stephanie McNickle, Planning Specialist, Avery Craft, 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: 6:00 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. There was no executive Session.
2. Consideration and possible action on the Minutes of the regular Board of Adjustment
meeting on May 18, 2010. Motion by Brashear to approve the May 18, 2010 minutes. Second
by Crawford. Approved (5-0)
3. Consideration and possible action on a Variance to UDC Section 6.03.050.A, Lot and
Dimensional Standards within a RS, Residential Single-Family District, to allow the platting
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, September 21, 2010 Page 2 of 5
of a nonconforming lot at Dimmit Addition, Block 92, being 0.081 acres, located at 908 Pine
Street. (VAR-2010-001)
Staff report given by Robbie Wyler. Wyler states that the property owners purchased the
subject vacant lot in 2000 with the intention of building a house on it. Recently, plans moved
forward in designing the house and the owners started the permitting process with the City.
Through the City’s review, it was determined the lot is nonconforming due to its size. The
applicant then applied for a Legal Lot Determination through the Planning and Development
office. After further research, the Planning Department determined the subject lot was not
legal due to property line alterations in the 1980’s that were established by deed but never
platted. The owners are now requesting a Variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment
(ZBA) to permit platting of the nonconforming, non-legal lot to allow construction of a
residential structure on the vacant lot.
The subject property measures 54.5’ by 58.51’ by 60.9’ by 63.85’, totaling 3,528 square feet.
UDC Section 6.03.050.A requires the minimum lot size for a RS, Residential Single-Family
property to be at least 5,500 square feet, 1,972 square feet greater than the subject property.
Based on the area, the property will need to be granted a Variance on the lot dimensions and
standards in order for platting to commence and the property to be brought into legal status.
Both the lot and proposed house will be compliant with all other lot and dimensional
standards detailed in UDC Section 6.03.050, including setback and impervious coverage.
Wyler states that there are a total of three (3) comments from the public regarding this
Variance for the Board’s consideration.
Wyler concludes that Staff recommends approval of the Variance to UDC Section 6.03.050.A,
Lot and Dimensional Standards for RS, Residential Single-Family Zoning District, more
specifically to the minimum lot size allowance, to allow the platting of the non-conforming
vacant lot. Staff considers there to be no items under the review criteria that suggest this
request is inappropriate. Further, staff wants to remind the Board that they should consider
both UDC Section 3.15.030, noted above, and the intent of the applicant when determining
whether or not to grant the Variance.
Chair Wood invites the applicant to speak. Currie Hallford, 905 S.Walnut Street states that in
1993 he purchased the primary residence on Walnut Street. In 2000, the Hallford family
decided to purchase the vacant lot behind his house at 908 Pine Street, with a future plan of
building a home for their eldest daughter and her family.
In April of 2010, the applicant was looking into moving forward in designing the house.
Through the City’s review, the applicant learned that the lot did not meet the minimal size
for a single family home. Applicant states that he has been paying full taxes on the property
for over ten (10) years and had no idea there would ever be a problem but with the Board’s
concurrence, he intends to build within the requirements of the City.
Crawford questions staff if the lot complied with the UDC at the time it was acquired in 2000.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, September 21, 2010 Page 3 of 5
Wyler states that the lot has always been non-conforming as it did not comply dimension
wise. When the applicant brought their plans in for review, it was realized that the lot was
smaller than what was allowed. It is a non-legal lot due to the property line changing in the
1980’s, making it a requirement for the applicant to bring the lot into legal status which
requires platting. The applicant was not aware that the lot was not legal at the time of
purchase.
Brashear states that because this is a non-conforming lot there is more than one way to solve
a non-conforming lot status. One of the solutions, as read in the UDC, is to combine the lot
with adjacent property to bring it into current standards. Brashear asks staff if there has been
any discussion in putting the two lots together and re-platting them so they will be in
compliance with area requirements, as the parcel is very small. However, the parcel that the
existing property sits on is larger than minimum lot standards, making it possible to pick up
2000ft from the other lot to bring into 908 Pine. This would create two lots that are in
compliance.
Wyler states that the idea to bring the two lots together has been discussed. During
discussion, staff and applicant decided that trying to obtain a variance would be the best way
to go, as the applicant wants to use the lot as a single property/separate lot.
Brashear asks staff what will happen 10-20 years from now when the house is potentially
bigger than the lot with no place for children to play. It is then suggested that granting the
approval of the variance may not be a wise decision.
Wyler states that like most lots purchased in Old Town, it is unpredictable as to what the
property will be like in 10-20 years. The applicant bought the property with the intention of
using the lot as a single family lot.
Chair Wood asks applicant if he purchased the lot through a realtor 10 years ago. Applicant
responds that they did not go through a realtor. The family who lived next door sold the lot
to him and that he was unaware of the rules and regulations pertaining to the lot at the time
of purchase.
Crawford asks staff what staff’s justification is for recommending approval in the variance
request, knowing that it is 64% of the minimum lot size requirement as stated in the UDC.
Wyler states that they have recommended approval due this not being a hardship created by
the applicant, as they were unaware of the regulations when they purchased the property. In
addition, the lot is not considered to be a visual nuisance by City standards.
Crawford explains that the nuisance was created when the applicant purchased a lot that
was non-conforming.
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, September 21, 2010 Page 4 of 5
Wyler states that outside of the fact that the applicant owns the adjacent lot, the hardship
with the lot in question is that without platting, the lot cannot be developed at all, essentially
making the lot useless.
Kreger explains that the applicant will not be granted any permits for this property unless it
is platted. In addition, set-backs would have to be maintained on the adjacent property in
order to move forward with the plans.
Brashear states that according to the staff comments, the following types of possible findings
do not constitute sufficient grounds for granting a variance:
That the property cannot be used for its highest and best use.
That there is a financial or economic hardship.
That there is a self-created hardship by the property owner or their agent.
That the development objectives of the property owner are or will be frustrated.
Brashear states that based on the information staff has provided, the Board can not grant a
variance.
Cook discusses the idea of the Board doing a Motion to Grant. Per Staff Analysis, no variance
shall be granted unless the ZBA finds all the following:
That there are extraordinary or special conditions affecting the land involved such that
strict application of the provisions of this Unified Development Code will deprive the
applicant of the reaonable use of their land. For example, a variance might be justified
because of topographic or other special conditions unique to the property and
development involved, while it would not be justified due to inconvenience or financial
disadvantage.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this
Code.
That the conditions that create the need for the variance do not generally apply to other
property in the vicinity.
That the conditions that create the need for the variance are not the result of the
applicant’s own actions.
That the granting of the variance would not substantially conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this Code.
That because of the conditions that create the need for the variance, the application of
this Code to the particular piece of property would effectively prohibit or unreasonably
restrict the utilization of the property.
The following types of possible findings do not constitute sufficient grounds for
granting a variance:
Cook states that a Motion to Grant would be the alternative option to granting the variance.
In addition, it is stated that the lot is not a legal lot and unless the Board grants the variance,
Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes, September 21, 2010 Page 5 of 5
it will not become a legal lot in its current configuration. Cook states that without the grant,
the applicants possible alternatives would be to sell the lot the their next door neighbors,
combine the lot with theirs, or leave it as a lot that does not require a permit such as a
garden.
Chair Wood states that the property is only approx 3500 sq ft and even if applicant were to
build only a one bedroom house, the lot would still not conform.
Crawford suggests that the applicant and staff revist with each other to discuss the idea of
combining the two lots so the applicant could create two condominium homes on the
combined properties with two separate ownerships.
Kreger states that only one ownership is allowed on a piece of property.
Elliot states that after personally taking a look at the site at 908 Pine Street, he believes that if
he were a neighbor he would have an issue with the proposed plan because the structures
would be too close to the lot lines. With this being said, Elliot questions the following staff
analysis: “The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare,
or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this Code.”
Davis states that after reviewing the floor plan, it seems as though the ratio to structure to
land (floor to area ratio) is too high.
Cook suggests postponing action to allow applicant to revisit with staff to create a plan to
make this lot more conforming. With that being said, staff explains that the City only controls
the size of the house related to the set-backs, height, impervious cover by defaults. City does
not regulate the size of the home.
The Board agrees that postponing this variance would be the best option to take.
Motion by Elliot to postpone the Variance to allow staff to revisit with the applicant. Second
by Crawford. (Approved 5-0)
4. Motion to adjourn at 6:47.
Approved, Leo Wood, Chair Attest, Tom Crawford, Secretary