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

logo2013

Zoning Board of Adjustments /

building and standards commission

Regular Session Agenda

July 9, 2015

6:00 PM

City Council Chambers

200 West Walker Street

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.                   Call to order and Roll call of members

 

II.                Approval of Minutes

A.     June 18, 2015

 

III.             Other Business

A.     Consider and take action to excuse absences for the June 18, 2015 meeting.

IV.              The Swearing in of Speakers and Witnesses

 

V.                 Public Hearings and Action Items from Public Hearings (ZBA)

A.     Hold a public hearing and take action on a Zoning Board of Adjustments Application, ZBA15-04 (810 4th Street), a request for a variance to the minimum side setback requirement for properties located within the “RNC-HDC” (Residential Neighborhood Conservation and Historic District Conservation) Overlay District (Section 125-81.E.) on approximately 0.271 acres zoned “RSF-7-RNC-HDC” (Single Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet with a Residential Neighborhood Conservation and Historic District Conservation Overlay), legally described as lots 9 & 10 of Block 22 of the League City Townsite, generally located east of Kansas Avenue and west of Iowa Avenue with an approximate address of 810 4th Street.

VI.              Public Hearings and Action Items from Public Hearings (BASC)

A.     Hold a public compliance hearing with possible action on BASC15-01 (311 Perkins Ave.), to determine whether a building or structure is a dangerous building, to show cause why the ordered action has not been completed and/or why civil penalties should not be assessed, 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 located at 331 Perkins Avenue, League City, Texas 77573, legally described as Lots one (1) and two (2), Block one (1) of Merchant’s Addition Subdivision, a subdivision in League City, Galveston County, Texas, according to the map thereof recorded in Volume 238, Page 12 in the Office of the County Clerk of Galveston County, Texas, together with all improvements thereon.

 

OWNERS/LIENHOLDERS

Brent A. Lovett, 311 Perkins Avenue, League City, Texas 77573-2151

James A. and Beverly M. Lovett, P.O. Box 686, Port O’Connor, Texas 77982

Lisa G. Tolman, Trustee, 322 East Main Street, Suite 108, League City, Texas 77573

Sears, Roebuck & Co., 45 Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970

Sears, Roebuck & Co., c/o Jay Taylor, Jay A. Taylor, P.C., 3311 Richmond Avenue, Suite 307, Houston, Texas 77098

 

VII.           Adjournment

 

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 2nd DAY OF JULY, 2015 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. 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.

 

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.

 

 

__________________________________________             

RICHARD WERBISKIS      

CITY PLANNER

 

MINUTES

CITY OF LEAGUE CITY

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS/

BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION

REGULAR SESSION

THURSDAY, JULY 09, 2015 at 6:00 P.M.

COUNCIL CHAMBERS

200 WEST WALKER STREET

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

 

I.                   Call to order and Roll call of members

Mr. Christiansen called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.

 

Members present:                                                      Members absent:

James R. Christiansen, Chair                                       Michael Hendershot, Vice-Chair

Katie Benoit                                                                

Lianne Russell

Tamra Gann-Curry                                         

           

Ed Rainey marked present at 6:05p.m.

 

City Representatives:

Richard Werbiskis, AICP, Assistant Director P&D

Mark Linenschmidt, AICP, CFM, Senior Planner

Matthew Grooms, Planner

Michelle Villarreal, Deputy City Attorney 

Kris Carpenter, Neighborhood Services Manager

 

II.                Approval of Minutes

A.     June 18, 2015

 

Ms. Benoit motioned to approve the minutes of June 18, 2015.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked for a vote.

 

The motion passed by a vote of 5-0-0.

 

III.             Other Business

A.     Consider to take action to excuse absences from the June 18, 2015 meeting.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt, Senior Planner -- stated, that at the recommendation of the City Attorney, staff has been requested to start accounting for the commissioners’ absences. He also explained that if a commissioner has more than three consecutive unexcused absences or is absent for more than 51 percent of the meetings in an annual period, it will be seen as a voluntary resignation from their post.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked for instructions on how to account for the absences.

Mr. Linenschmidt replied that they only needed an explanation for the records, and then the board could decide whether it’s excusable or not.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked the two members absent last meeting, Mr. Rainey and Ms. Russell, for their explanations.

 

Mr. Rainey replied that he had a football booster meeting for his son that night, and he sent an email explaining his absence.

 

Ms. Russell replied that her grandson was admitted to the hospital, and she also sent an email explaining her absence.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked to whom the email was sent.

Ms. Russell explained that it was sent to Mr. Linenschmidt.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if the other commissioners would like to discuss the explanations given by Mr. Rainey and Ms. Russell.

Ms. Benoit asked Mr. Linenschmidt if they needed a motion.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt explained that a motion would be staff’s preference.

 

Ms. Benoit asked for a motion to excuse Mr. Rainey and Ms. Russell’s absences.

 

Mr. Christiansen seconded the motion.

 

The motion passed 3-0-0.

 

The Swearing in of Speakers and Witnesses

Mr. Christiansen swore in the witnesses, stating this is a quasi-judicial board, which is being recorded; therefore, anybody who speaks should be aware it is considered testimony. Any appeal of the decision by the Zoning Board of Adjustment or Building and Standards Commission must be filed with the Court of Competent Jurisdiction within 10 days for the ZBA and 30 days for the Building and Standards Commission after the date of the decision rendered by this board/commission, or such time period as indicated by Section 216.014 Texas Local Government Code.

 

 

Public Hearings and Action Items from Public Hearings (ZBA)

Hold a public hearing and take action on a Zoning Board of Adjustments Application, ZBA15-04 (810 4th Street), a request for a variance to the minimum side setback requirement for properties located within the “RNC-HDC” (Residential Neighborhood Conservation and Historic District Conservation) Overlay District (Section 125-81.E.) on approximately 0.271 acres zoned “RSF-7-RNC-HDC” (Single Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet with a Residential Neighborhood Conservation and Historic District Conservation Overlay), legally described as lots 9 & 10 of Block 22 of the League City Townsite, generally located east of Kansas Avenue and west of Iowa Avenue with an approximate address of 810 4th Street.

Matthew Grooms, Planner, stated that the request is for a variance to the side setback requirement in the Zoning District. The requirement is currently five feet for the side yard setback, and the applicant is purposing to build a structure with a two-foot side yard setback. A zoning map was shown.

Mr. Grooms explained the background of the property, the uses of the adjacent properties, and described the addresses notified of the public hearing. The applicant is proposing to build an accessory structure, which will be a combination of a greenhouse and storage shed, in their rear yard. Sixty-eight residents were notified, and no objections have been received for this request. 

An illustration of the applicant’s site plan was shown.

Mr. Grooms explained that the proposed structure is two feet from the western lot boundary, and the site was chosen due to drainage issues on the opposite side of the rear area of the applicant’s yard.

The following timeline is given by Mr. Grooms:

May 28, 2015 – Construction began on the property and the Code Compliance Division opened a case on the project requesting all work be ceased until proper permits were acquired.

June 18, 2015 – The Historic District Commission approved the Certificate of Appropriateness for this project on the condition that a variance is granted for the side yard setback requirement.

June 29, 2015 – 68 public notices are mailed out and public signs posted on the subject property.

July 9, 2015 – Variance request to be heard before the Zoning Board of Adjustments.

Two photos were presented illustrating the proximity of the structure to the adjoining property.

Mr. Grooms explained that, of the Variance Finding Form tests:

: The property fails to pass the Public Interest test because it does not meet the five foot buffer requirement, which was determined to be an interest of the public.

: The property passed the Authorization for Contrary Use test because the specific project is permitted in the district.

: The property fails to pass the Injury to Adjacent Property test because the buffer requirement is not met and there is potential for rain water to run off from the structure onto the adjacent property.   

: The property failed to pass the Essential Character of the District test because the five foot setbacks are deemed an essential character of the district.

: The property fails to pass the Harmony with the Spirit and Intent of the Zoning Ordinances test because the property does meet the setback requirements, and side yard setbacks are important to meeting the intent of the zoning ordinances.

: The Plight of the Owner test was considered in-applicable because the owner’s hardship was determined to be self-induced, and thus not a plight.

: The property passes the Integrity of the Zoning test because the project is a permitted use in the zoning.

: The property fails to pass the Health, Safety, and Public Welfare test because of the structures close proximity to the adjacent property and the negative consequences that could come from that, such as rain water runoff.

Mr. Grooms explained that the City Staff’s recommendation is not to approve the variance because the accessory structure does not meet the Zoning District guidelines and fails six out of the eight tests. 

Mr. Christiansen asked for confirmation that the original structure was taken down and the new accessory structure was being built on top.

Mr. Grooms confirmed this.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if the applicant started the project without the proper permits and approvals.

Mr. Grooms replied yes.

 

Mr. Rainey asked if there was anything other than rain water that would be adverse to the adjacent property.

Mr. Grooms explained that nothing else could be identified.

 

Mr. Rainey asked how rain water affected the Health, Safety, and Welfare of the public.

Mr. Grooms explained that the roofline of the structure is even with the fence line, so runoff water is the main issue, but other issues could arise.

 

Mr. Rainey asked about the positive affects the additional rainwater of would have on the adjacent property’s yard.

Mr. Grooms admitted that it could be possible.

 

Mr. Rainey asked if the Zoning District guidelines came into effect after the original structure, which did not meet the guidelines, had already been built.

Mr. Grooms explained that the original structure was built under different Zoning District guidelines, but once the new structure was built it fell under the current Zoning District guidelines.

 

Mr. Rainey asked if changing the design of the roof would make the structure conforming to the guidelines, and change the City Staff’s recommendation.

Mr. Grooms explained that the applicant has spoken about doing this, but the City Staff’s recommendation would remain the same because the side yard setback is still not met.

 

Mr. Rainey asked whether the decision had anything to do with fire hazards.

Mr. Grooms stated that it does not.

Ms. Benoit asked if the structure was being built exactly where another structure once stood.

Mr. Grooms stated that was correct.

 

Ms. Benoit commented that she did not hear that information at the Historic Commission meeting.

Mr. Grooms explained that the applicant used the existing pad for the new structure.

 

Ms. Benoit commented that the Historic Commission does not regulate setback, but focuses on the architectural features, and that the Certificate of Appropriateness was given because the commission does not regulate non-architectural features, such as zoning.

 

Mr. Grooms stated that the Historic Commission did not want to deny the project based on the setbacks because the project did meet all other zoning requirements, but only approved the certificate with the condition that the Board grants a variance for the project.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if there was a gutter on the backside of the structure.

Mr. Grooms stated that the applicant spoke about installing one.

 

Ms. Benoit commented that there are numerous accessory structures in the district that are nonconforming, and if a property owner takes one down, they have to rebuild it conforming to current regulations.    

 

Ms. Gann-Curry asked for the date of when the old structure was taken down.

Mr. Grooms stated that was a question only the applicant could answer.

 

Richard Werbiskis, Assistant Director of Planning and Development, commented that there was no permit issued for the demolition of the old structure, which is generally required before the removal of a structure.

 

Mr. Werbiskis also stated that zoning ordinances dictate that when a nonconforming structure is replaced, the new structure must be conforming to all zoning requirements, unless a variance is issued by the commission.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked the applicant or his or her representative to address the commission.

 

Toby Hall, 810 4th Street, stated that the original shed was built 23 years ago, in the same location of where the new shed will be built, the structure has yet to flood the adjacent property, and she owns the other four lots adjacent to her property, on the east side.

 

Ms. Hall explained that the original shed was removed due to a bee infestation, and that the new structure was to replace the old one, while updating the features to match the house. She also stated that she would have no issue installing gutters in the back.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked for a date of when the old structure was taken down, and if the structure was a safety hazard.

Ms. Hall stated that the structure was deteriorated and that the bees prevented her from entering her yard.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked why a permit was never acquired for the removal and building of a structure.

Ms. Hall stated that she did not know she needed a permit to replace an existing structure.

 

Ms. Hall commented that the walkway area would be composed of crushed granite and flagstone and the bottom of the shed is composed of it, which will allow the water to drain better.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if she tried to apply for a permit.

Ms. Hall answered that she did.

 

Ms. Russell asked Ms. Hall is she had been in contact with any of her neighbors.

Ms. Hall stated that some of her neighbors were at the hearing, but she had not communicated with the neighbor at the adjacent property.

 

Mr. Christiansen opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m.

 

Mike Peterson, 720 2nd Street, spoke in favor of Ms. Hall’s accessory structure and commented on the beauty of Ms. Hall’s home and structure.

 

Janine Henderson, 720 3rd Street, spoke in favor of Ms. Hall’s accessory structure and commented that the structure would be a welcomed addition to the Historic District.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked Ms. Henderson if her opinion was the general consensus of the neighborhood, and her opinion on the non-conformity of the accessory structure.

Ms. Henderson stated that the original structure never flooded the neighbor’s property, and that Ms. Hall would ensure that the adjourning properties were not flooded.

 

Ms. Henderson asked the commissioners if their only concern was flooding.

Mr. Christensen responded that fire hazards were also a concern.

 

Ms. Henderson stated that she believed Ms. Hall would comply with all regulations.

 

Mr. Christiansen closed the public hearing at 6:39 p.m.

 

Mr. Christiansen stated that Ms. Gann-Curry had not been activated because they had a quorum without her vote, and he asked the commissioners if they would like to discuss the matter prior to voting or after.

Mr. Rainey stated that either option was acceptable.

 

Ms. Benoit commented that she lived in the area and that she did receive a public hearing notice, and she also stated, that a frequent question neighbors had was who receives a variance and who does not.

 

Ms. Benoit commented that the commissioners follow specific guidelines and criteria on who can and who cannot receive a variance, and have little leeway.

Mr. Rainey responded that the commissioners also add a human element, and can use common sense, as opposed to a computer.  As an example, Mr. Rainey stated that the accessory structure would be in the interest of the public, because it would enhance the overall look of the neighborhood.

 

Ms. Benoit responded that the commissioners are dealing with sign variances, and those in favor of the signs claimed that the signs would improve the area; however, the overall appeal of the signs was not a criteria used for rendering a decision.

Ms. Russell responded that the decision on the signs was difficult because the signs would have been an improvement; however, a key factor in the decision was that the sign was for a commercial business and would have been displayed in a highly visible area.

 

Ms. Russell stated that the circumstances for this current situation are different than the circumstances of the sign variances and she agreed with Mr. Rainey’s comments.

 

Mr. Rainey also stated that the signs had changed dimensions, but this structure would remain the same.

Ms. Benoit responded that the structure was not in the same location, and that neighbors on the side were concerned about the structure, although they were not present at the hearing.

 

Mr. Rainey stated that it was not appropriate to use evidence not presented at the hearing to render a decision.

Ms. Benoit asked Mr. Rainey if she should ask the questions so that City Staff could answer them.

Mr. Rainey stated that the City staff had an opportunity to present their evidence, and new evidence would have to be brought up by the City. He also stated that commissioners have to use the evidence presented at the hearing because there would be a burden of having to gather evidence and witnesses, which may also lead to recusals.

 

Ms. Benoit commented that she may have to call for a recusal of herself because she knows information that has not been presented.

 

Ms. Russell asked if Ms. Benoit’s recusal would cause them to not have a quorum.

Ms. Benoit responded that Ms. Gann-Curry was there.

 

Ms. Benoit motioned to recuse herself.

 

Mr. Rainey seconded the motion.

 

The motion passed 6-0-0.

 

Mr. Christiansen activated Ms. Gann-Curry.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked Mr. Linenschmidt if he could speak to the City attorney.

Michelle Villarreal, Deputy City Attorney, introduced herself.

 

Mr. Christensen asked Ms. Villarreal if voting for a variance would set a precedent for similar issues.

Ms. Villarreal responded that it would not set a precedent, and that decisions are made case-by-case.

 

Mr. Christensen asked whether variances would be specific to the particular location.

Ms. Villarreal responded yes.

 

Ms. Gann-Curry commented that she too agreed with Mr. Rainey’s comments.

 

Ms. Russell asked the City the reasoning to why the accessory structure failed to pass the “Essential Character of the District” test.

Mr. Grooms responded that the zoning ordinances list the characteristics that provide the atmosphere and echo the intent of the district, and because the accessory structure does not follow the zoning ordinance, it fails to pass the test.

 

Ms. Russell asked if one issue, such as the setback, could cause a structure to fail the test.

Mr. Grooms responded yes.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked whether the accessory structure that is being built qualifies as self-inflicted.

Mr. Rainey stated that he understood why the original structure was taken down, because of bees and its dilapidated appearance, and why the applicant chose to reuse the original area that is located in the setback, because of economic reasons, and stated that the City has only offered drainage issues and the neighborhood's overall appearance to justify their decision.

Mr. Rainey also stated that the neighbor did not feel the issue was pressing enough to attend the hearing, the drainage issues can easily be dealt with, and the overall appearance of the neighborhood would be improved by the structure and prevent negative externalities.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked Mr. Rainey if he believed that the bees and the dilapidated condition of the original structure constituted a unique circumstance.

Mr. Rainey responded yes.

 

Mr. Werbiskis commented to commissioners that local government code gives an eight part test to weigh each application based on law, so that decisions are not arbitrary.  

 

Ms. Russell asked Ms. Hall if there would electricity in the structure.

Ms. Hall responded no, the structure is to be used as a greenhouse, and would not contain fire producing objects.

 

Ms. Russell asked if the structure would have a fire extinguisher.

Ms. Hall responded that the structure is next to her home.

 

Mr. Rainey asked whether the structure would overhang into the adjacent property.

Ms. Hall responded that the structure is taller but right at the fence, and stated there was no other place on the property to place the structure.

 

Mr. Rainey asked Ms. Hall if she understood that if a part of the structure did enter into the neighbor's property the neighbor would have the right to remove that part of the structure.

Ms. Hall responded that she did understand, and she commented on the neighbor's tree being a nuisance.

 

The commissioners reviewed the eight part criteria and rendered the following votes:

            Test #1 – True – 4

                            False – 0

Test #2 – True – 4

    False – 0

Test #3 – True – 4

                        False – 0

Test #4 – True – 4

                        False – 0

Test #5 – True – 4

                        False – 0

Test #6 – True – 4

                        False – 0

Test #7 – True – 4

                        False – 0

Test #8 – True – 4

               False – 0

Mr. Christiansen commented that all items of the eight part criteria were unanimously voted true by the commissioners.

Ms. Russell motioned to approve the variance.

Ms. Gann-Curry seconded the motion.

The motion passed 4-0-0.

Mr. Christiansen asked for a vote to approve the variance.

The variance was approved unanimously.

 

Mr. Christiansen commented that if the applicant is pulling a permit, the City will inspect the structure to ensure it follows current regulations.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if a notary was required.

Mr. Linenschmidt responded that no notary was required, and that notaries were only required for dangerous structures.

 

Public Hearings and Action Items from Public Hearings (BASC)

Hold a public compliance hearing with possible action on BASC15-01 (311 Perkins Ave.), to determine whether a building or structure is a dangerous building, to show cause why the ordered action has not been completed and/or why civil penalties should not be assessed, 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 located at 331 Perkins Avenue, League City, Texas 77573, legally described as Lots one (1) and two (2), Block one (1) of Merchant’s Addition Subdivision, a subdivision in League City, Galveston County, Texas, according to the map thereof recorded in Volume 238, Page 12 in the Office of the County Clerk of Galveston County, Texas, together with all improvements thereon.

 

OWNERS/LIENHOLDERS/OTHER PARTIES

Brent A. Lovett, 311 Perkins Avenue, League City, Texas 77573-2151

James A. and Beverly M. Lovett, P.O. Box 686, Port O’Connor, Texas 77982

Lisa G. Tolman, Trustee, 322 East Main Street, Suite 108, League City, Texas 77573

Sears, Roebuck & Co., 45 Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970

Sears, Roebuck & Co., c/o Jay Taylor, Jay A. Taylor, P.C., 3311 Richmond Avenue, Suite 307, Houston, Texas 77098

 

Kris Carpenter, Neighborhood Services Manager, stated that commissioners found items 1,2, 3,4,5,6,10, and 11 were existing on the property and ordered the owners to provide a status report  at the current meeting, as well as provided documented proof of his progress to City staff a week prior to the meeting.

 

Mr. Carpenter stated that the applicant provided documented proof of a $7,000 down payment for a new mobile home structure, the applicant also provided a contract which included the removal of the old property, and the property owner is making progress on the structure. However, the owner has not given a timeline for when the structure will be removed.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked for the applicant to address the commission.

Brent Lovett, 311 Perkins Avenue, introduced himself.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked for Mr. Lovett to detail his progress in purchasing a new mobile home. 

Mr. Lovett stated that the new mobile home would arrive sometime in August.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if the new mobile home had been made.

Mr. Lovett responded that it was being made.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if they give 90 to 180 days to build the mobile home.

Mr. Lovett responded that he called the contractors and they told him that it would be completed in August.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked Mr. Lovett if he was aware of any electrical, plumbing, or structural issues he may have in replacing the old mobile home with the new one.

Mr. Lovett responded that if issues arose he would get a permit and have contractors fix the issues, and he stated that he attempted to get a permit last week, but was unsuccessful.

 

Mr. Lovett asked how long a permit was good for.

 

Mr. Carpenter responded that he contacted Planning to inquire if Mr. Lovett could acquire a permit for the new mobile home, and that he contacted the building department and stated that he approved of Mr. Lovett receiving a permit.

 

Ms. Benoit commented that Mr. Lovett was concerned about how long the permit would last.

Mr. Lovett agreed with Ms. Benoit.

 

Mr. Carpenter stated that he believed that permits were good for a year, but have to look into finding a definite answer.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if the City would let Mr. Lovett know.

Mr. Lovett stated that it was in the contract to have the old mobile home removed.

 

Mr. Rainey asked the City if Mr. Lovett has substantially complied with their request.

Mr. Carpenter responded that Mr. Lovett is progressing toward compliance, but the removal of the old structure is a concern because the structure is dangerous, and thus the city would prefer for the structure to be removed as soon as possible.

 

Ms. Russell asked the City who was in control of the timeline.

Mr. Carpenter responded that the commissioners were in control of the timeline.

 

Ms. Benoit asked Mr. Lovett if the beginning of September was a reasonable timeframe to have the old mobile home replaced with the new one.

Mr. Lovett responded that he hoped so.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if Mr. Lovett was still living in the old mobile home.

Mr. Lovett responded yes.

 

Mr. Rainey asked the City for the timeframe they would like to see the old mobile home removed.

Mr. Werbiskis responded that the City would prefer for the old mobile home to be removed by the 1st of September.

 

Mr. Carpenter asked for a set date, so that the City knows when they can remove the structure, and agreed that September first would be preferable.

 

Mr. Rainey asked Mr. Lovett his opinion on setting the removal date to September 1st.

Mr. Lovett stated that he was concerned about the time constraint for having the new structure replace the old structure after the old structure has been removed and the possible consequences to having the old structure removed too soon.

Ms. Benoit asked if another compliance hearing could be done September 1, 2015.

Mr. Werbiskis stated that the City would prefer for the compliance hearing to be continued at the August meeting, so that the issue is not perpetuated past September 1st.

 

Ms. Benoit asked for the amount of hearings the commissioners are allowed to have.

Mr. Carpenter stated that he did not believe there was a limit.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if it was possible to have a hearing once a month until the issue is resolved.

Mr. Carpenter stated that the City and Mr. Lovett should have an exact date at the August hearing.

 

Ms. Benoit asked Mr. Lovett if he could attend the August meeting and inform the commissioners on any updates.

Mr. Lovett stated that he would.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if there were any further questions.

 

Mr. Christiansen stated that he already opened a public hearing at the previous meeting on the property and stated that he would not be opening a public hearing at this meeting. 

 

The commissioners reviewed the compliance orders and rendered the following decisions:

 

Item D was marked other, noting that the hearing was reset to the August meeting and that the owner has provided documentation of progress and secured a new mobile home.

 

“See Prior Order” Item was marked.

 

Item 9 was marked and the owner was asked to appear at the August 6, 2015 meeting, and to give the City three days before the meeting.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked for a motion to vote on the compliance order for the continuance of the compliance order.

 

Mr. Rainey motioned for a vote on the compliance order to continue the compliance order.

 

Ms. Benoit seconded motion.

 

The motion passed 5-0-0.

 

Mr. Christiansen commented that the City should have a notary at the meetings for the convenience of the applicants, the commissioners, and the City.

 

 

 

Adjournment

Mr. Christiansen asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting.

 

Ms. Russell made a motion to adjourn.

 

Mr. Russell seconded the motion.

 

The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 5-0-0.

 

Mr. Christiansen adjourned the meeting at 7:30 PM.

 

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 15th DAY OF MAY, 2015 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. 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.

 

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.

 

 

___________________________________                ______________________________

Richard Werbiskis                                                                    James R. Christiansen,

Assistant Director of Planning & Development                      Chairperson, Zoning Board of Adjustment/           

                                                                                         Building and Standards Commission