HomePrint
Email

Go To Search
City Council and Boards and CommissionsDepartments - City ConnectionsResidents - Resources and InformationHow Do I...? - How Can We Help?
Click to Home

 

View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

LC LOGO

Zoning Board of Adjustments /

building and standards commission

Regular Session Agenda

November 4, 2010

6:00 PM

City Council Chambers

200 West Walker Street

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.                   Call to order and Roll call of members

II.                Approval of Minutes

A.     September 2, 2010

B.     October 7, 2010

III.             The Swearing in of Speakers and Witnesses

IV.              Items Tabled and Subject to Recall

A.  Consider and take action on ZBA10-20 (Big League Dreams Sign), a variance request to Sections 90-110(b)(3), 90-107(7), 90-103(a), and 90-144 of the Sign Ordinance limiting the size of a free-standing sign to 220 square feet within 800 feet of the Interstate 45 Highway centerline; prohibition of stereopticon or motion picture machines used in conjunction with or attached to a sign that is visible from a public street or sidewalk; prohibition of any portion of a sign to project or extend over any public sidewalk, street or alley, or other public property; and the prohibition of any additional billboards within the city.

V.                 New Business

A.  Consider and take action on ZBA10-16 (Wings N More Pole Sign), a variance request for additional sign pursuant to Sections 90-6 and 90-110(b)(3) of the Sign Ordinance defining the requirements for businesses within 800 feet of the centerline of the Interstate Highway.

VI.              Public Hearings

A.     Hold a public hearing and take action on ZBA10-26 (2009 Hawaii Avenue), to determine whether a building or structure is a dangerous building, and issue any order(s) determined necessary to address such conditions per 22-331 et. seq. of the League City Code of Ordinances on property legally described as Lots 7 and 8, Block 236 of the Moore’s Addition, a subdivision in League City, Galveston County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Volume 155, Page 10 of the Map Records of Galveston County.

OWNERS/LIENHOLDERS

Domingo and Angelita H. Puentes, 2009 Hawaii Avenue, Dickinson, Texas 77539

 

The Building Official has determined that the property is no longer in violation and recommends closing the case.

B.     Hold a public hearing and take action on ZBA10-24 (1224 Willow Lane), to determine whether a building or structure is a dangerous building, and issue any order(s) determined necessary to address such conditions per 22-331 et. seq. of the League City Code of Ordinances on property legally described as Lot 11, Block C of the Clear Creek Subdivision, a subdivision in League City, Galveston County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Volume 119, Page 67 of the Map Records of Galveston County. The building official has found the subject property to be in violation of the subject Ordinance. A copy of the inspection report listing the specific conditions alleging the structure(s) to be in violation of the subject Ordinance is on file with the City Secretary for public inspection.

 

Page 2 of 3

City of League City

Zoning Board of Adjustments/

Building Standards Commission

Regular Session Agenda

November 4, 2010 

6:00 PM

Council Chambers, 200 West Walker Street

 

OWNERS/LIENHOLDERS

Jack and Ann K. Lowery, 1224 Willow Lane, League City, Texas 77573

Jack and Ann L. Lowery, P. O. Box 988, League City, Texas 77573

Barlow, Todd Crews & Jordan, PC, Attn: Thomas P. Hewitt, 17225 El Camino Real, Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77058

Safari Mobile Home Community, Incorporated, Attn: Thomas C. Dock, 2935 Calder Drive, #84, League City, Texas 77573

InterFirst Bank Nassau Bay, N.A., Attn: Robert K. Scott, Trustee, 2200 Nasa Road One, Houston, Texas 77058

 

C.     Hold a public hearing and take action on ZBA10-25 (1230 Oleander), to determine whether a building or structure is a dangerous building , and issue any order(s) determined necessary to address such conditions per 22-331 et. seq. of the League City Code of Ordinances on property legally described as Lot 15 of the Semlac Mobile Home Subdivision, a subdivision in League City, Galveston County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Volume 10, Page 57 of the Map Records of Galveston County. The building official has found the subject property to be in violation of the subject Ordinance. A copy of the inspection report listing the specific conditions alleging the structure(s) to be in violation of the subject Ordinance is on file with the City Secretary for public inspection.

OWNERS/LIENHOLDERS

Earl O. Murray, 1228 Oleander Lane, League City, Texas 77573-6724

Barlow, Todd, Jordan & Oliver, LLP, 17225 El Camino Real, Houston, Texas 77058-2768

City of League City, Attn: Code Enforcement, 300 West Walker Street, League City, Texas 77573

Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. Wage & Investment Area #5

 

D.    Hold a public hearing and take action on ZBA10-27 (2129 East Winn), to determine whether a building or structure is a dangerous building , and issue any order(s) determined necessary to address such conditions per 22-331 et. seq. of the League City Code of Ordinances on property legally described as Lot 52-A, Block 8 of Replat of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 52, 53 and 54, Block 8 of the Glen Cove Subdivision, a subdivision in League City, Galveston County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Volume 18, Page 905 of the Map Records of Galveston County. The building official has found the subject property to be in violation of the subject Ordinance. A copy of the inspection report listing the specific conditions alleging the structure(s) to be in violation of the subject Ordinance is on file with the City Secretary for public inspection.

OWNERS/LIENHOLDERS

Roger W. Forrest and Ruth C. Forrest, 2126 East Winn Street, League City, Texas 77565

Sarah Smith Dickson, PC, 1501 Turner Street, League City, Texas 77573

J.W. Lowes, III, 1331 Gemini, Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77058

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Attn: Document Management Receiving, 3601 Minnesota Drive, MAC: X4701-002, Bloomington, Minnesota, 55435

Robert K. Fowler, Trustee, 8955 Katy Freeway, Suite 305, Houston, Texas 77024

Eastwood & Company Incorporated, Attn: Kim Townsend, Agent, 6534 Guhn Road, Houston, Texas 77040

Kim Townsend, P. O. Box 30103, Houston, Texas 77249-0103

Page 3 of 3

City of League City

Zoning Board of Adjustments/

Building Standards Commission

Regular Session Agenda

November 4, 2010 

6:00 PM

Council Chambers, 200 West Walker Street

 

VII.           Adjournment

 

THE BOARD RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HEAR ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED AGENDA ITEMS THAT QUALIFY FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION BY PUBLICLY ANNOUNCING THE APPLICABLE SECTION NUMBER OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, (CHAPTER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING CHAPTER 551.071 “CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY”), THAT JUSTIFIES EXECUTIVE SESSION TREATMENT.

 

CERTIFICATE

 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE NOTICE OF MEETING WAS POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD AT CITY HALL OF THE CITY OF LEAGUE CITY, TEXAS, BY THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010 BY 6 PM, AND WAS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 551, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT).  ITEMS POSTED IN THE OPEN SESSION PORTIONS OF THIS AGENDA MAY ALSO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED OR EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM OF THE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AT ANY TIME DURING THE COURSE OF THE ABOVE-REFERENCED PROCEEDING MAY CONSTITUTE A MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, CHAPTER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.  BY THIS NOTICE, THE PUBLIC IS HEREBY ADVISED OF SAID MEETING NOT LESS THAN 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE DATE, TIME AND LOCATION NOTED ABOVE.

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________

OSCAR AREVALO

BUILDING OFFICIAL

 

 

MINUTES

CITY OF LEAGUE CITY

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS/

BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION

REGULAR SESSION

THURSDAY November 04, 2010 at 6:00 P.M.

City Council Chambers

200 WEST WALKER

******************************************************************

I.                   Call to order and Roll call of members

 

Mr. Christiansen called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.

 

Members present:                                                       *Members absent:

             James R. Christiansen, Chair

            Amy Beasley                            

Richard Stephenson                                                   

Elaine Kosty                                                   

 

 

City Representatives:

Tony Allender, Director of Planning and Research

Mark Linenschmidt, Senior Planner

Oscar Arevalo, Building Official

R.J. Davidson, Building Inspector

Pat Fletchall, Notary Public

Susan Wologo, Recording Secretary

Steven Weathered, City Attorney

Arnold Polanco, City Attorney

 

 

II.                Approval of Minutes

 

A.     September 02, 2010

 

Ms. Beasley made a motion to approve the minutes of September 02, 2010.

 

Ms. Kosty seconded the motion.

 

The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0-0.

 

B.     October 07, 2010

 

Mr. Stephenson made a motion to approve the minutes of October 07, 2010.

 

Ms. Kosty seconded the motion.

 

The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0-0.

 

III.             Swearing in of Witnesses

 

Mr. Christiansen swore in the witnesses, stating this is a quasi-judicial board, which is being recorded and therefore anybody that speaks should be aware it is considered testimony.  Any appeal of the decision by the Board of Adjustment must be filed with the Court of Competent Jurisdiction within 10 days of the date of the decision rendered by this board. 

 

 

The Board entered into an executive session at 6:05 p.m. and reconvened to the regular scheduled meeting at 6:21 p.m.

 

 

IV.       Items Tabled and Subject to Recall

A. Consider and take action on ZBA10-20 (Big League Dreams Sign), a variance request to Sections 90-110(b)(3), 90-107(7), 90-103(a), and 90-144 of the Sign Ordinance limiting the size of a free-standing sign to 220 square feet within 800 feet of the Interstate 45 Highway centerline; prohibition of stereopticon or motion picture machines used in conjunction with or attached to a sign that is visible from a public street or sidewalk; prohibition of any portion of a sign to project or extend over any public sidewalk, street or alley, or other public property; and the prohibition of any additional billboards within the city.

 

Mr. Arevalo, Building Official, restated the staff report for this item.  He reminded the Board that the request is for a variance to the sign ordinance that has come before them previously. He noted that as with any variance a hardship must be established and stated that should the variance be granted, staff is requesting a condition be added that a sign height of 40’ not be exceeded.

 

Tony Allender, Director of Planning and Research, came forward and suggested that the sign height, as part of the condition, be extended to 42 ½’ as that will be the maximum height in the new ordinance.  He said the proposed new ordinance will be accommodating electronic billboards in a number of different ways and for a number of different reasons but mostly as a method for the removal of static billboards.  He said, essentially, it will allow for the removal of roughly 60 to 70 percent of the billboards in our community because there will be 3 square feet of static sign removed for every single square foot of sign that is put in place.  He further noted that the square footage proposed in the new ordinance is 672 square feet.  The applicant’s proposed sign exceeds the 672 square feet as the 672 square feet applies only to the digital screen and not the signage area below it that reads “Big League Dreams”.

 

Mr. Christiansen called for the applicant. 

 

Scott Sheldon, General Manager for Big League Dreams, came forward and noted a correction to one of Staff’s concerns regarding motion and movement within the signage.   He said for safety reasons, there would be no live feeds or videos but only stagnant pictures as stipulated in the 2007 variance approval due to requirements from the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT).

 

Mr. Christiansen asked why the initial sign approval was never acted upon. He also advised the applicant that the Board would be looking for the establishment of a hardship.

 

Mr. Sheldon explained the reason for the reapplication is twofold; one being the hurricane and the other being the economy.  He said the project stalled in 2007 due to the lack of financial backing.  He said he now has financial backing and that’s why he’s come back before the Board.   

 

Mr. Sheldon explained his reason behind the hardship is that Big League Dreams is set back on the property so the sign is being proposed off-site to attract customers and visitors.

 

A discussion was held regarding the proposed sign location.  Mr. Christiansen asked if a formal agreement was in place with the City to allow the sign since the proposed location of the sign is on City property.  Mr. Sheldon responded that Big League Dreams is in a public/private partnership with the City of League City.  However, he said, he was not aware of a formal written document.  Mr. Allender came forward and explained that because the proposed location is on City property, the request would still need to go before City Council to have a lease agreement passed.

 

A discussion continued regarding signage details and future maintenance of the sign.   

 

Ms. Kosty and Ms. Beasley questioned the applicant’s hardship and asked why other methods of advertisement could not be utilized.  He responded that they want everyone to know when they come through League City that they know where League City is as well as where Big League Dreams is.  He said that can’t happen if they sign is located back where the property is.  Ms. Beasley asked why they couldn’t use a billboard on the freeway that is already there.  Mr. Sheldon responded he believes the closer the sign is to the location, the better the sign performs.

 

The Board continued to establish a hardship and asked Mr. Allender for his input.  Mr. Allender said that if he was going to argue a hardship, he would argue visibility for the site and the fact that it is remote and difficult to find.

 

Mr. Stephenson questioned the performance of the existing signs provided by the City.  Mr. Sheldon responded the signs are of minimal performance in directing people to Big League Dreams, especially for those who have never been to League City.

 

A discussion was held regarding the ownership and maintenance of the sign.  The discussion continued regarding ownership of the property along Big League Dreams Parkway and the designated zoning district.  Mr. Sheldon advised he believes Randy Hall owns the property along both sides of Big League Dreams Parkway.  Mr. Allender advised the area is within a Planned Unit Development and has the potential of having a wide variety of uses; some, which are residential and some of which are commercial with the frontage most likely to be commercial of some kind. Mr. Christiansen pointed out that if there were to be a strip shopping center in this area, it would be very difficult to see Big League Dreams when driving down the freeway unless there was a sign there.  Mr. Allender said it’s possible that the visibility could be hindered and advised that should the variance be approved, Staff would take into account and deal with signage and surrounding uses as they come to that area.

 

Mr. Allender referred back to the conversation regarding ownership and maintenance of the property.  He informed the Board, at the guidance of the City Attorney, that essentially a piece in the potential clause states that at the expiration or early termination of the lease, all alterations, replacements and basically everything become property of the Landlord.

 

Mr. Weathered advised the Board to remove item IV-A from the table.

 

Ms. Beasley motioned to reopen ZBA10-20 (Big League Dreams Sign) and remove it from the table.

 

Ms. Kosty seconded the motion.

 

The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0-0.

 

With no further discussion, Mr. Christiansen called for a motion for ZBA10-20.

 

Ms. Kosty made a motion to deny ZBA10-20 (Big League Dreams Sign).

 

Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion.

 

A brief discussion was held regarding the lack of a hardship.  Ms. Beasley asked if their motion to deny would affect the applicant’s ability to bring back a similar request under the new ordinance.  Mr. Allender answered that it would not keep the applicant from coming back under the new ordinance.

 

With no further discussion, Mr. Christiansen called for a vote.

 

The motion to deny ZBA10-20 (Big League Dreams Sign) passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0-0.

 

 

V.        New Business

AConsider and take action on ZBA10-16 (Wings N More Pole Sign), a variance request for additional sign pursuant to Sections 90-6 and 90-110(b)(3) of the Sign Ordinance defining the requirements for businesses within 800 feet of the centerline of the Interstate Highway.

Mr. Arevalo restated the staff report for the variance request reminding the Board that this came before them previously then gave a brief history of the item.

Mr. Christiansen asked the applicant to come forward.  Mr. Gary Grote, attorney representing the applicant, came forward.  He stated he disagreed with the interpretation of the Sign Ordinance and referred to Section 110(b)(3) to explain his statement.  He said that the Sign Ordinance is Section 110(b)(3) specifically says that within the interstate corridor, the height and size limitations of this section, refers to all of Section 110, (which includes the integrated shopping center),  as long as the business is within 800 feet of the centerline of the interstate highway.  He said in his view the sign is allowed so the only variance they are requesting is for the additional square footage of the sign.  He further explained that in his view their request falls within the hardship requirements because of the unusual configuration of the shopping center. 

The Commissioners reviewed and discussed the referenced section of the Ordinance. 

Ms. Beasley asked for clarification if Mr. Grote’s request is for that of a larger sign and not for an additional sign.  Mr. Grote responded affirmatively.  She asked him to explain exactly what he was requesting as she didn’t think the agenda stated his request correctly.  He responded his request is for a variance to Section 110(b)(3) which limits an additional sign to 100 square feet; his request is for 216 square feet.

A discussion was held regarding the applicant’s request and the interpretation of the Ordinance.

The discussion continued regarding a discrepancy between the applicant’s request and the wording within the packet information as well as the wording on the agenda.  Mr. Weathered reviewed the packet information then advised the Board the request before them on the agenda is for an additional sign.  Mr. Grote said the application made was for increased size of the sign as opposed to an additional sign.

Ms. Kosty suggested tabling the item so the applicant could resubmit his request.  Mr. Grote requested that he be able to view the agenda prior to the meeting.

Ms. Kosty made a motion to postpone item V-A for clarification between council, and clarification of the applicant’s request.

Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion.

No discussion was held.

The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0-0.

Mr. Christiansen took a moment to swear in Mr. Forrest and Mr. Poynor, representatives present for item VI-D ZBA10-27 (2129 East Winn), as they arrived after the Swearing in of Witnesses.

VI.             Public Hearings

 

Mr. Christiansen opened the public portion of the hearings at 7:58 p.m. then read aloud General Procedures and Instructions to Participants for all Dangerous Building Hearings noted on the agenda.

 

 

A.  Hold a public hearing and take action on ZBA10-26 (2009 Hawaii Avenue), to determine whether a building or structure is a dangerous building, and issue any order(s) determined necessary to address such conditions per 22-331 et. seq. of the League City Code of Ordinances on property legally described as Lots 7 and 8, Block 236 of the Moore’s Addition, a subdivision in League City, Galveston County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Volume 155, Page 10 of the Map Records of Galveston County.

OWNERS/LIENHOLDERS

Domingo and Angelita H. Puentes, 2009 Hawaii Avenue, Dickinson, Texas 77539

 

The Building Official has determined that the property is no longer in violation and recommends closing the case.

Mr. Arevalo came forward and presented photos of the property and reported that the property has been cleaned up and is no longer determined to be a dangerous building.

Mr. Christiansen asked the property owners to come forward. 

Mr. and Mrs. Puentes and Ms. Bonilla came forward and affirmed the property had been cleared and thanked Mr. Arevalo for his assistance.  Mr. Arevalo acknowledged Kevin Holland of Cervelle Homes for volunteering his crews to do the clean up at no charge.

Mr. Christiansen stated that based on the evidence the Board would consider the property no longer in violation and recommended the case closed.

Mr. Stephenson motioned to close Case ZBA10-26 (2009 Hawaii Avenue).

Ms. Beasley seconded the motion.

No discussion was held.

The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0-0.

B.   Hold a public hearing and take action on ZBA10-24 (1224 Willow Lane), to determine whether a building or structure is a dangerous building, and issue any order(s) determined necessary to address such conditions per 22-331 et. seq. of the League City Code of Ordinances on property legally described as Lot 11, Block C of the Clear Creek Subdivision, a subdivision in League City, Galveston County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Volume 119, Page 67 of the Map Records of Galveston County. The building official has found the subject property to be in violation of the subject Ordinance. A copy of the inspection report listing the specific conditions alleging the structure(s) to be in violation of the subject Ordinance is on file with the City Secretary for public inspection.

 

OWNERS/LIENHOLDERS

Jack and Ann K. Lowery, 1224 Willow Lane, League City, Texas 77573

Jack and Ann L. Lowery, P. O. Box 988, League City, Texas 77573

Barlow, Todd Crews & Jordan, PC, Attn: Thomas P. Hewitt, 17225 El Camino Real, Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77058

Safari Mobile Home Community, Incorporated, Attn: Thomas C. Dock, 2935 Calder Drive, #84, League City, Texas 77573

InterFirst Bank Nassau Bay, N.A., Attn: Robert K. Scott, Trustee, 2200 Nasa Road One, Houston, Texas 77058

 

 

Mr. Arevalo restated the staff report stating the property has been in serious disrepair for a while.  He said Code Enforcement has made efforts to contact the owner but have received no response.

R.J. Davidson, Inspector with the City, came forward and presented photos of the property and stated Staff’s recommendation for the building at 1224 Willow Lane is for a final order of demolition.

 

Mr. Christiansen inquired about the age of the structure and length of time it’s been in the current condition.  Mr. Davidson said the structure, according to the legal description, appears to have been built in 1974.  He explained the structure was in a dilapidated form prior to Hurricane Ike and the current condition being the result of damage from the hurricane and lack of maintenance.  Mr. Stephenson asked if the structure had been abandoned.  Mr. Davidson said he believed it to be abandoned since Hurricane Ike.  Mr. Davidson added for clarification that the structure is a mobile home in a mobile home park with occupied residences on both sides.

 

Mr. Christiansen opened the floor for public comment for anyone wishing to speak on this item.  No one from the public was present to speak on this item.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if the landowner or anyone with direct interest in the property was present.  No one was present to speak on this item.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked for a report from the Building Official of specific conditions or defects rendering the structure dangerous pursuant to standards set out in section 22-334 of the City Code and a summary of all previous enforcement actions and attempts to bring the structure into compliance.

 

Mr. Davidson came forward to answer questions from Board members.  Mr. Christiansen asked if the property was fenced off or secured.  Mr. Davidson said it was not as there is obviously no interest in the property.  He advised the City will seek a final order of demolition and will then forward it to Code Enforcement to begin the demolition.  Mr. Christiansen inquired if anyone lived at the property.  Mr. Davidson answered there is no one living there that is supposed to be, however there is a concern of vagrants at the property.  He said there is also the concern of children as well as taxpaying citizens who have to look at the property every day.

 

Mr. Weathered asked Mr. Davidson a series of questions:

 

Is it your testimony that the photos you’ve given to the Commission depict violations of 1-13 of Section 22-334 of the code?  Mr. Davidson responded yes.

 

Did Staff provide notice as required by city code?  Mr. Davidson advised a public notice was published in the paper, the property was posted at the front door, and certified letters were mailed to all interested parties.   

 

What Code Enforcement action has been taken by the City?  Mr. Davidson replied for 18 months staff has been in contact with the mobile home park development and has made several attempts to contact the owner who now staff believes to be deceased.

 

Mr. Weathered asked despite all efforts made by the City, the structure remained in the same substandard condition?  Mr. Davidson responded affirmatively.

 

The structure is unsecured and opened to vagrants and children and constitutes a health hazard as well; is that correct.  Mr. Davidson responded absolutely.

 

With no further questions from the City Attorney or from the Board members, Mr. Christiansen closed the testimony portion of the hearing.

 

Mr. Weathered referred to the form order in the packet to identify a typographical error.  The hearing address was held at 200 West Walker as opposed to 300 West Walker as stated on page 4.  

 

Mr. Christiansen closed the testimony portion of the hearing and called for the Board to consider and vote on the findings listed within the form order.

 

Section III – FINDINGS

Mr. Stephenson made a motion to accept the violation checklist showing the property to be in violation of all 13 violations listed.

 

Ms. Beasley seconded the motion.

 

No discussion was held.

 

The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0-0.

 

Section IV – ORDERS

Ms. Beasley made a motion to identify the Orders that items 1,2,3,4 and 5 all apply and are to be marked and with item 2 and 3; the date stated shall be November 5, 2010.  Item 5 shall reflect the date of November 18, 2010 with the word demolition circled and the word repair crossed out.  Items 6-11 of section IV are non-applicable.

 

Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion.

 

The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0-0.

 

Section V – SPECIAL ADDITIONAL FINDINGS FOR DEMOLITION IF APPLICABLE

Ms. Beasley made a motion to mark item 1 as non-applicable and to mark item 2 as it applies.

 

Ms. Kosty seconded the motion.

 

The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0-0.

 

Section VI – COMPLIANCE

Ms. Beasley motioned that the section shall be marked a Final Order, signed, and dated November 4, 2010.

 

Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion.

 

The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0-0.

 

The Board recessed at 8:37 p.m. and reconvened at 8:47 p.m.

 

C.   Hold a public hearing and take action on ZBA10-25 (1230 Oleander), to determine whether a building or structure is a dangerous building , and issue any order(s) determined necessary to address such conditions per 22-331 et. seq. of the League City Code of Ordinances on property legally described as Lot 15 of the Semlac Mobile Home Subdivision, a subdivision in League City, Galveston County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Volume 10, Page 57 of the Map Records of Galveston County. The building official has found the subject property to be in violation of the subject Ordinance. A copy of the inspection report listing the specific conditions alleging the structure(s) to be in violation of the subject Ordinance is on file with the City Secretary for public inspection.

 

OWNERS/LIENHOLDERS

Earl O. Murray, 1228 Oleander Lane, League City, Texas 77573-6724

Barlow, Todd, Jordan & Oliver, LLP, 17225 El Camino Real, Houston, Texas 77058-2768

City of League City, Attn: Code Enforcement, 300 West Walker Street, League City, Texas 77573

Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. Wage & Investment Area #5

 

Mr. Davidson came forward and presented photos of the property and stated it is staff’s recommendation to obtain a final order for demolition.

 

Mr. Christiansen opened the floor for public comment for anyone wishing to speak on this item.  No one from the public was present to speak on this item.

 

Mr. Weathered asked Mr. Davidson a series of questions:

 

Did you provide notice as required by the City Code including publication in the newspaper?  Mr. Davidson responded yes sir.  Mr. Weathered asked if the property was posted as well.  Mr. Davidson responded affirmatively.

 

Is it your testimony that all items 1-13 have been violated by the structure under Section 22-334?  Mr. Davidson responded yes sir.

 

Can the dwelling be feasibly repaired?  Mr. Davidson responded No, Sir not in Staff’s opinion.

 

Was this a manufactured home?  Mr. Davidson confirmed it was.

 

The building is not secured and it’s open to children or vagrants; is that correct? Mr. Davidson responded yes, Sir.

 

Is it your testimony that the only thing feasible would be to demolish the structure?  Mr. Davidson responded yes, sir.

Does it need to be posted as a dangerous building?  Mr. Davidson responded yes, sir.

Mr. Christiansen asked if anyone with direct interest in the property was present.  No one was present to speak on this item.

 

Mr. Christiansen closed the testimony portion of the hearing and called for the Board to consider and vote on the findings listed within the form order.

 

Section III – FINDINGS

Ms. Beasley made a motion to accept the violation checklist showing the property to be in violation of all 13 violations listed.

 

Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion.

 

No discussion was held.

 

The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0-0.

 

Section IV – ORDERS

Ms. Beasley made a motion to identify the Orders that item 1,2,3,4 and 5 all apply and shall all be marked and with items 2 and 3 marked with the date of November 5, 2010.  Item 5 shall reflect the date of November 18, 2010 with the word demolition circled and the word repair crossed out.  Items 6-11 of section IV are non-applicable.

 

Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion.

 

No discussion was held.

 

The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0-0.

 

Section V – SPECIAL ADDITIONAL FINDINGS FOR DEMOLITION IF APPLICABLE

Ms. Beasley motioned on Section V to mark item 1 as non-applicable and to mark item 2 as it applies.

 

Section VI – COMPLIANCE

Ms. Beasley motioned that the section shall be marked a Final Order, signed, and dated November 4, 2010.

 

Mr. Stephenson seconded Ms. Beasley’s motion for Section V and Section VI.

 

No discussion was held.

 

The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0-0.

 

D.  Hold a public hearing and take action on ZBA10-27 (2129 East Winn), to determine whether a building or structure is a dangerous building , and issue any order(s) determined necessary to address such conditions per 22-331 et. seq. of the League City Code of Ordinances on property legally described as Lot 52-A, Block 8 of Replat of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 52, 53 and 54, Block 8 of the Glen Cove Subdivision, a subdivision in League City, Galveston County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Volume 18, Page 905 of the Map Records of Galveston County. The building official has found the subject property to be in violation of the subject Ordinance. A copy of the inspection report listing the specific conditions alleging the structure(s) to be in violation of the subject Ordinance is on file with the City Secretary for public inspection.

 

OWNERS/LIENHOLDERS

Roger W. Forrest and Ruth C. Forrest, 2126 East Winn Street, League City, Texas 77565

Sarah Smith Dickson, PC, 1501 Turner Street, League City, Texas 77573

J.W. Lowes, III, 1331 Gemini, Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77058

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Attn: Document Management Receiving, 3601 Minnesota Drive, MAC: X4701-002, Bloomington, Minnesota, 55435

Robert K. Fowler, Trustee, 8955 Katy Freeway, Suite 305, Houston, Texas 77024

Eastwood & Company Incorporated, Attn: Kim Townsend, Agent, 6534 Guhn Road, Houston, Texas 77040

Kim Townsend, P. O. Box 30103, Houston, Texas 77249-0103

 

Mr. Davidson restated the staff report and presented photos of the structure violations.  He presented a photo of a ladder accessing the structure but said he was unsure if the building was being accessed by vagrants or if by the homeowner.  He further added that the homeowner had not responded to the certified notices sent out by staff.  He stated it is staff’s recommendation to obtain a final order for demolition.

 

Mr. Christiansen opened the floor for public comment for anyone wishing to speak on this item.  No one from the public was present to speak on this item.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if anyone with direct interest in the property was present.

 

Tony Poynor came forward to represent Roger Forrest, the son of the homeowner and advised that Ruth Forrest, the homeowner, passed away on August 15th of this year.  He explained that the house sustained damages from Hurricane Ike, and although Ms. Forrest had hoped to have the house repaired, it has not been possible due to lack of finances.  Roger Forrest came forward and described the repairs he’s done to the house to date.  He asked if he secured the building if he could be given additional time to retrieve some personal property stored in the house.

 

Mr. Weathered asked Mr. Davidson a series of questions:

 

You obviously sent out notices as required by the city code and including posting on the building itself?  Mr. Davidson responded yes. 

 

To all addresses listed in the real property records, tax records and city records?  Mr. Davidson responded affirmatively.

 

Is the current structure capable of being rebuilt?  Mr. Davidson responded anything is repairable if you have enough money and enough time.

 

Mr. Weathered restated his question:  As the building sits now, what is the safety condition for the city and its residents.  Mr. Davidson responded that staff’s recommendation is for a full demolition.  He said the house as it sits will not withstand another hurricane, is not structurally sound and does not meet windstorm requirements.

 

So it’s your testimony that if a storm of that nature came, parts of that house could cause damage to houses that are structurally fit and comply with the code.  Mr. Davidson responded affirmatively and explained that the neighboring houses that are in accordance to withstand a hurricane are not in accordance to withstand a house blowing into them.

 

Mr. Weathered asked Mr. Davidson if he has evidence of the repairs done on the house.  Mr. Davidson explained that there are no records of any permits that had been pulled but said it’s obvious improvements were made to the property.

 

A permit would have been required for the type of repairs and removals discussed by the homeowner?  Mr. Davidson responded that is correct.

 

Would the cost of repairs exceed the value of the structure as it sits today?  Mr. Davidson answered that he was not qualified to make that estimation.  He said in his opinion, it would take more than fifty percent of the cost of the structure to repair it which also meets League City and FEMA’s requirements for demolition.

 

If the house had been fifty percent destroyed, it has to comply with all of the new updated code regulations; is that correct?  Mr. Davidson responded yes.

 

Mr. Weathered passed the witness.

 

Mr. Stephenson inquired as to the possibility of lowering the house to the ground, cleaning debris, and securing the area to buy the homeowner time.  Mr. Davidson explained the house could not be lowered to the ground due to the base flood elevation requirement.  A discussion was held regarding fencing of the property. A discussion followed regarding how structures of this type affect our CAV (Community Assessment Visit) status.

 

Mr. Christiansen opened the floor to present Mr. Forrest with the opportunity to present his position in relation to the building official’s testimony.

 

Mr. Forrest informed the Board that the house had been permitted and plans submitted to the City.  He said everything was being built to code.

 

Ms. Beasley expressed sorrow for Mr. Forrest’s loss and asked Mr. Forrest what he needed.  She asked him if he needed up to thirty days to remove his belongings from the house.  Mr. Forrest responded affirmatively and said he needed a place to take his belongings to and said he is currently looking at a home on Coryell but it would not be ready for at least three or four weeks.

 

Mr. Weathered asked Mr. Forrest if he notified the ICC that his structure had been damaged more than fifty percent.  Mr. Forrest responded yes.

 

Mr. Weathered asked Mr. Forrest if he had the ability to complete the fencing currently on the property.  Mr. Forrest replied yes.

 

Mr. Weathered asked how long it would take for him to put up the fence.  Mr. Forrest responded that he could do it in the weekend.

 

Mr. Poynor came forward and advised the attorney that Mr. Forrest did not have the money for the fencing as he needed the money to move.

Mr. Weathered asked so the cost of securing the property would not be an economically reasonable expenditure.  Mr. Poynor replied no.

 

Mr. Weathered asked Mr. Forrest if he agreed.  Mr. Forrest responded yes.

 

Mr. Weathered asked Mr. Forrest if the Commission issued an order requiring demolition with thirty days, would it give him enough time to remove his personal property from the house.  Mr. Forrest explained that the home on Coryell would not be ready for at least thirty days.  Mr. Poynor added that there is a lot of hardship involved so forty-five or sixty days would be better because the house would not be ready for Mr. Forrest to move anything to in thirty days.

 

Mr. Weathered advised that the notice letter states that (Mr. Forrest) has the burden of establishing the repairs and the time it takes for those repairs.  He said his assumption was that repairs were not economically feasible.  He said now were down to a demolition situation, if it goes past thirty days the Commission is required to conduct a compliance hearing and have Mr. Forrest come back to establish that he has complied with the order the Commission has made.

 

Ms. Kosty asked if the homeowner could be allowed 30 day increments to review progress.

 

Mr. Weathered asked what requirements will be made of the owner due to the condition of the building as it sits at this time.  He suggested posing questions to determine if the property poses an immediate danger to the public; if a compliance hearing is to state where he is regarding obtaining financing for the demolition, transfer of the property, or bringing it up to code.

 

Mr. Arevalo said he did not agree with the time extensions and said a definite time period needed to be given.  A discussion was held regarding a time period.

 

Mr. Christiansen closed the testimony portion of the hearing and called for the Board to consider and vote on the findings listed within the form order.

 

Section III – FINDINGS

Ms. Beasley made a motion to accept the violation checklist showing the property to be in violation of all 13 violations listed.

 

Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion.

 

No discussion was held.

 

The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0-0.

 

Section IV – ORDERS

Ms. Beasley made a motion to mark item 1 to allow staff to make interior as well as exterior inspections of the building immediately and continuously on an as needed basis; to mark item 2 with the date of November 11, 2010 to secure the building and property from unlawful entry and to constantly monitor the structure to ensure that it is kept secure.  Item 3 shall be marked and dated December 6, 2010.  Item 4 shall be marked that the Building shall be posted on or near the front door as a dangerous building with the “DO NOT ENTER” notice in accordance with and contained in Section 22-342 of the City of League City Code of Ordinance.   Item 5 shall be marked and dated December 6, 2010 and with the box marked demolition.  Items 6-11 of section IV are non-applicable.

 

Section V – SPECIAL ADDITIONAL FINDINGS FOR DEMOLITION IF APPLICABLE

Ms. Beasley motioned that item 1 shall be marked non-applicable and mark Item 2 shall as it applies.

 

Section VI – COMPLIANCE

Ms. Beasley motioned that the section shall be marked a Final Order, signed, and dated November 4, 2010.

 

Mr. Kosty seconded Ms. Beasley’s motion for Sections IV, V, and VI.

 

No discussion was held.

 

The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0-0.

 

The Board recessed at 10:13 p.m. and reconvened at 10:28 p.m.

 

 

VII.          Adjournment

 

 

Mr. Beasley motioned to adjourn the meeting.

 

Mr. Stephenson seconded the motion.

 

Mr. Christiansen adjourned the meeting at 10:29 p.m.

 

 

 

 

___________________________________              ______________________________

Mark Linenschmidt                                                    James Christiansen,

Senior Planner                                                                       Chair, Zoning Board of Adjustment                         

Date minutes approved: ___________________