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

January 7, 2016

6:00 PM

City Council Chambers

200 West Walker Street

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.                    Call to Order and Roll Call of Members

 

II.                 Approval of Minutes

A.     November 5, 2015

 

III.              The Swearing in of Speakers and Witnesses

 

IV.              New Business

A.     Consider and take action on a Zoning Board of Adjustments Application, ZBA15-12 (Claremont Park HOA Park Pool Lights), an appeal of a determination by staff that Section 125-140.H. of the League City Code of Ordinances has not been violated.

 

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

A.     Hold a public hearing and take action on Zoning Board of Adjustments Application, ZBA15-11 (The Wharf Boat Dock 18, Slips 1 and 2), a variance request to the minimum lot area, minimum lot width and maximum lot coverage requirements (Schedule 125-70.C.) for boat slips zoned “RSF-2-PUD” (Single-family residential with a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet with a Planned Unit Development Overlay) on approximately 0.014 acres, legally described as Slips 1 and 2, Dock, 18 of the Wharf at Clear Lake, Phase I Subdivision, generally located north of Marina Bay Drive (FM 2094) and west of Davis Road within the Wharf at Clear Lake Marina.

 

B.      Hold a public hearing and take action on a Zoning Board of Adjustments Application, ZBA15-13 (154 Easton Glen), a variance request to the minimum front-yard setback (Schedule 125-70.C.) for a property zoned “RSF-7-PUD” (Single-Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet with a Planned Unit Development Overlay) on approximately 0.143 acres, legally described as Block 4, Lot 9 of the Bay Colony Northpointe, Section 1 Subdivision, generally located north of Cross Colony Drive and south and east of FM 646 with an approximate address of 154 Easton Glen Lane.

 

C.     Hold a public hearing and take action on a Zoning Board of Adjustments Application, ZBA15-14 (5931 Meadowside – Hall Elementary School), a variance request to the minimum rear-yard setback (Schedule 125-74.C.) for a property zoned “PS” (Public/Semi-Public) on approximately 7.544 acres, legally described as Reserve I in Section 3 of the Countryside Subdivision, generally located north of Country Place Lane, south of FM 518 and east of Morningside Drive with an approximate address of 5931 Meadowside Street.

 

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

A.     Hold a public compliance hearing with possible action on BASC16-01 (1811 Oriole Drive), 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 1811 Oriole Drive, League City, Texas 77573, legally described as Lot 25, Block 2, Clear Creek Heights Section 3, a subdivision in League City, Galveston County, Texas, according to the map thereof recorded in the Office of the County Clerk of Galveston County, Texas, together with all improvements thereon.

 

VII.           Staff Comments

 

VIII.         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 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 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.

 

 

__________________________________________     

RYAN GRANATA    

PLANNING MANAGER

 

MINUTES

CITY OF LEAGUE CITY

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS/

BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION

REGULAR SESSION

THURSDAY, January 07, 2016 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 6:03 PM.

 

            Members present:                                                          Members absent:

            James R. Christiansen, Chair                                         Ed Rainey

            Katie Benoit                                                                

            Michael Hendershot, Vice-Chair

            Tamra Gann-Curry*

 

            *Mr. Christiansen activated Ms. Gann-Curry as a voting member.

                                                           

            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

            Oscar Arevalo, Building Official

 

II.                 Approval of Minutes

A.     November 5, 2015

 

            Ms. Gann-Curry motioned to approve the November 05, 2015 minutes, with corrections.

            Mr. Hendershot seconded the motion.

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

 

III.              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.

 

IV.              New Business

A.     Consider and take action on a Zoning Board of Adjustments Application, ZBA15-12 (Claremont Park HOA Park Pool Lights), an appeal of a determination by staff that Section 125-140.H. of the League City Code of Ordinances has not been violated.

 

Mark Linenschmidt, Senior Planner, stated that the item had been pulled at the request of the applicant and will be presented at the February meeting.

 

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

            Mr. Christiansen made a motion to take action on Item V.C. first.

            Ms. Gann-Curry seconded the motion.

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

 

C.  Hold a public hearing and take action on a Zoning Board of Adjustments Application, ZBA15-14 (5931 Meadowside – Hall Elementary School), a variance request to the minimum rear-yard setback (Schedule 125-74.C.) for a property zoned “PS” (Public/Semi-Public) on approximately 7.544 acres, legally described as Reserve I in Section 3 of the Countryside Subdivision, generally located north of Country Place Lane, south of FM 518 and east of Morningside Drive with an approximate address of 5931 Meadowside Street.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt commented that a unanimous vote is required for the variance to be approved.

 

Matthew Grooms, Planner, presented for the City of League City. City staff recommended approval subject to the condition that the variance shall apply only to the temporary structure now being proposed, and once removed the applicant will be required to meet all setback requirements.

 

Paul Miller, representing Hall Elementary School – 2145 West Nasa Blvd - was sworn in.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked what the forward-thinking plan was if more students are admitted to the school.

Mr. Miller stated that the temporary buildings are the forward-thinking plan, as they are meant to accommodate the enrollment growth projected over the next three years, and will allow more time to build the school on Westover, if the new bond is approved by voters.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked what the timeline was for the new school.

Mr. Miller stated that if it goes forward with the bond in 2017, they could expect completion of the construction by 2020, and the portables at Hall Elementary would be removed.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if all of the portables would be removed.

Mr. Miller stated yes.

 

Ms. Gann-Curry asked if the playground area was permanent or temporary, and if the buildings could be moved there.

Mr. Miller stated the area was permanent and if the building were moved there, the area could no longer be used for recreation.

 

Ms. Gann-Curry asked if that was the only space that could be used for recreation.

Mr. Miller stated yes.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if there would be lights on the portables.

Mr. Miller stated yes, in the front.

 

Ms. Benoit asked how the lighting would impact the people living behind the portables.

Mr. Miller stated that the lighting was on the opposite side, under a canopy.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if there would be lights behind the building, near the fences.

Mr. Miller stated no.

 

Mr. Hendershot asked if there was any consideration to move the buildings west of the area next to the existing portables.

Mr. Miller stated that the issue was that the 20-foot separation requirement, due to fire code, forces the portables into the 40 foot setback.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if notification packets were sent out to neighboring properties.

Mr. Grooms stated yes.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked for a count of notices and how many support or oppose the buildings.

Mr. Grooms stated that the City sent out 179 notifications and no responses had been received at that time, but a letter against the request was recently received.

 

The public hearing was opened at 6:21 P.M.

 

Ann Kim – 15904 Country Place – commented that she opposed the request because of the close proximity to her backyard, and expressed her concern that the building may pose a fire hazard to her property, the current portables have been there for possibly 10 years or more and the new ones will also remain for an extended time, and that the portables hurts her property value, as they can be seen from her backyard.

 

Robert Lot – 15807 Country Place – commented that his concern is that the portables are unnecessary because CCISD has other elementary schools in the area that they could locate the portables on, instead reducing the students’ exercise area, and commented that the current portables do not appear to be 20 feet apart from the opposing buildings. Mr. Lot also asked if the building could be located elsewhere, and stated that he was generally opposed to the request because of traffic issues that already exist in the area.

 

Ms. Kim commented that she was also concerned about security issues.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked why the current portables are not 20 feet apart.

Mr. Grooms stated that he was not aware of that.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked why they are requiring it with new portables.

Mr. Grooms commented that it was because of fire code.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked why the existing portable are not following fire code.

Mr. Miller stated that the fire codes changed.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if the existing portables were being used to the maximum.

Mr. Miller stated that he could not comment on the question as he was unaware, but did know that the portables are used every day, for different purposes.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if they could change the construction material to be fire retardant, so that the new portables could be moved next to the existing ones.

Mr. Miller stated that they are relocating portables they already have, and not constructing new portables.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if the current portables were built with a different standard and if they were built onsite.

Mr. Miller stated that the portables were brought in and are portables with wheels under them.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if the existing ones are the same as the ones coming in.

Mr. Miller stated that the new ones are built to meet current Windstorm requirements and other current requirements.

 

Ms. Benoit commented that it would be better if the school moved the portables closer together than closer to the fences.

Mr. Miller stated that the requirement is that the buildings be 20 feet apart.

 

Mr. Hendershot asked if a new permanent building could be built closer depending on the construction type and materials.

Mr. Miller stated yes.

 

Mr. Miller commented that the goal was to build another school to accommodate the growth in the area, as new addition to the school would not be a long term solution, and the portable buildings are to address growth until the new school is built.

 

Mr. Lot asked why the portable buildings do not have to be repositioned to comply with current fire codes, and commented that he was still in opposition to the portable buildings.

 

Mr. Grooms commented that the zoning ordinance states that if properties zoned Public/Semi-public are to be located 50 feet or less from residential, its height is to be no greater than 42 feet, and asked the commissioners to consider that as a condition for approval.

 

The public hearing was closed at 6:41 P.M.

 

The following Findings were rendered:

 

Such variance will not be contrary to public interest.

True: 1

False: 3

 

Ms. Benoit, Ms. Gann-Curry, and Mr. Christiansen voted false and Mr. Hendershot voted true.

 

2. Such variance will not authorize the operation of a use other than those uses specifically authorized for the district in which the property for which the variance is sought is located.

True: 4

False: 0

 

3. Such variance will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property in the same district.

True: 1

False: 3

 

Ms. Gann-Curry voted true and Ms. Benoit, Mr. Christiansen, and Mr. Hendershot voted false.

 

4. Such variance will not alter the essential character of the district in which it is located or the property for which the variance is sought.

True: 4

False: 0

 

5. Such variance will be in harmony with the spirit and purposes of this chapter.

True: 4

False: 0

 

6. The plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, and the unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property and are not merely financial, and are not due to, or the result of, general conditions in the district in which the property is locates.           

True: 3

False: 1

 

Ms. Gann-Curry, Mr. Christiansen, and Mr. Hendershot voted true, and Ms. Benoit voted false.

 

7. The variance will not substantially weaken the general purposes of this chapter or the regulations herein established for the specific district.

True: 4

False: 0

 

8. The variance will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

True: 4

False: 0                                                                           

 

Ms. Gann-Curry made a motion to approve the variance.

Mr. Hendershot seconded the motion.

 

Mr. Hendershot commented that he voted false on number three because he believes some neighbors will be injured by the variance.

Ms. Gann-Curry commented that she voted true because she did not believe the injury was substantial or permanent. 

 

Mr. Hendershot commented that the removal of the portables is contingent on the approval of the bond.

 

Mr. Werbiskis commented that once a variance is issued on a property, it is on the property and will affect any future projects.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if that fact would still apply if the condition was made for the variance to apply only to the temporary buildings.

Mr. Werbiskis stated yes.

 

Ms. Benoit commented that she would like that condition added to the motion, as well as the height requirement.

 

Ms. Gann-Curry made a motion to approve the variance with the conditions recommended by City staff.

Mr. Hendershot seconded the motion.

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

 

A.     Hold a public hearing and take action on Zoning Board of Adjustments Application, ZBA15-11 (The Wharf Boat Dock 18, Slips 1 and 2), a variance request to the minimum lot area, minimum lot width and maximum lot coverage requirements (Schedule 125-70.C.) for boat slips zoned “RSF-2-PUD” (Single-family residential with a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet with a Planned Unit Development Overlay) on approximately 0.014 acres, legally described as Slips 1 and 2, Dock, 18 of the Wharf at Clear Lake, Phase I Subdivision, generally located north of Marina Bay Drive (FM 2094) and west of Davis Road within the Wharf at Clear Lake Marina.

 

Mark Linenschmidt, Senior Planner, presented for the City of League City. City staff recommended approval, as the subject boat slips are complementary to the character of the Wharf at Clear Lake PUD and have been in existence since construction, resulting in no changes onsite.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if there are boat slips are already in existence.

Mr. Linenschmidt stated yes.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if they needed a variance because they already exist this way, even though they were platted a different way in 1970s.

Mr. Linenschmidt stated yes.

 

Ms. Gann-Curry asked if all the other boats were head-in.

Mr. Linenschmidt stated yes.

 

The public hearing was opened at 7:03 P.M.

The public hearing was closed at 7:03 P.M.

 

The following Findings were rendered:

 

Such variance will not be contrary to public interest.

True: 4

False: 0

 

2. Such variance will not authorize the operation of a use other than those uses specifically authorized for the district in which the property for which the variance is sought is located.

True: 4

False: 0

 

3. Such variance will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property in the same district.

True: 4

False: 0

 

4. Such variance will not alter the essential character of the district in which it is located or the property for which the variance is sought.

True: 4

False: 0

 

5. Such variance will be in harmony with the spirit and purposes of this chapter.

True: 4

False: 0

 

6. The plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, and the unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property and are not merely financial, and are not due to, or the result of, general conditions in the district in which the property is locates.           

True: 4

False: 0

 

7. The variance will not substantially weaken the general purposes of this chapter or the regulations herein established for the specific district.

True: 4

False: 0

 

8. The variance will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

True: 4

False: 0

Mr. Hendershot made a motion to approve the variance.

Ms. Benoit seconded the motion.

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

 

B.      Hold a public hearing and take action on a Zoning Board of Adjustments Application, ZBA15-13 (154 Easton Glen), a variance request to the minimum front-yard setback (Schedule 125-70.C.) for a property zoned “RSF-7-PUD” (Single-Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet with a Planned Unit Development Overlay) on approximately 0.143 acres, legally described as Block 4, Lot 9 of the Bay Colony Northpointe, Section 1 Subdivision, generally located north of Cross Colony Drive and south and east of FM 646 with an approximate address of 154 Easton Glen Lane.

 

Matthew Grooms, Planner, presented for the City of League City. City staff recommended approval of the variance, as the applicant proposes to meet all requirements of the RSF-7 zoning district, except the front-yard setback, which uniformly does not conform to the zoning ordinance throughout the entire neighborhood and that no other foreseeable impacts would affect surrounding properties or public safety.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if there was a way to prevent each home from having to come before the board.

Mr. Grooms stated yes, by amending the zoning ordinance.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if they would request the City to look at changing the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Linenschmidt stated that the City was looking into the matter.

 

The public hearing was opened at 7:14 P.M.

The public hearing was closed at 7:14 P.M.

 

The following Findings were rendered:

 

1. Such variance will not be contrary to public interest.

True: 4

False: 0

 

2. Such variance will not authorize the operation of a use other than those uses specifically authorized for the district in which the property for which the variance is sought is located.

True: 4

False: 0

 

3. Such variance will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property in the same district.

True: 4

False: 0

 

4. Such variance will not alter the essential character of the district in which it is located or the property for which the variance is sought.

True: 4

False: 0

 

5. Such variance will be in harmony with the spirit and purposes of this chapter.

True: 4

False: 0

 

6. The plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, and the unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property and are not merely financial, and are not due to, or the result of, general conditions in the district in which the property is locates.           

True: 4

False: 0

 

7. The variance will not substantially weaken the general purposes of this chapter or the regulations herein established for the specific district.

True: 4

False: 0

 

8. The variance will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

True: 4

False: 0

 

Ms. Benoit made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that the City amends the ordinance to make the variance the same for the entire subdivision.

Ms. Gann-Curry seconded the motion.

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

 

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

A.     Hold a public compliance hearing with possible action on BASC16-01 (1811 Oriole Drive), 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 1811 Oriole Drive, League City, Texas 77573, legally described as Lot 25, Block 2, Clear Creek Heights Section 3, a subdivision in League City, Galveston County, Texas, according to the map thereof recorded in the Office of the County Clerk of Galveston County, Texas, together with all improvements thereon.

 

Kris Carpenter, Neighborhood Services Manager, presented for the City of League City. City staff recommended that the building be condemned, demolished by February 6, 2016, and that a sign should be placed in the front of the property stating that it is a misdemeanor to occupy this building, as the building meet conditions (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (10) (11) (12) listed on the Dangerous Building Criteria.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if there were any other lien holders.

Mr. Carpenter stated that Mr. Nugent was the sole lien holder and owner of the property.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if the building had electricity or sewer.

Mr. Carpenter stated that there was water at the property, but the electrical box was off.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked about the front and back door.

Mr. Carpenter stated that it would be difficult for someone to exit the structure in a timely manner, during an emergency or fire, as the flooring is missing.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked about the landscaping.

Mr. Carpenter stated that there is a rotted tree that is at risk for falling and there is tree debris in the front yard.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if there was a compliant received on the property.

Mr. Carpenter stated yes.

 

Ms. Benoit commented that the structure presented a safety issue.

Mr. Carpenter stated that he agreed.

 

John Nugent, property owner  – 1811 Oriole – stated that he believed the house was not habitable, but did not need to be demolished, that he was in the process of selling the property to a local builder, it is going to cost more than 50 percent of the value of the house to renovate the house, he believes the house will not collapse because the house has a steel frame, he has repair estimates of approximately 25,000 dollars to repair the house, if the property is torn down it will no longer be considered affordable housing to rebuild, the taxes are current, an entire rebuilding of the house would be about 80,000 dollars, he previously  asked the building department for a permit to rebuild the property, and that he is willing to work with the City while making repairs.

 

Ms. Benoit asked if someone was living in the building.

Mr. Nugent stated that no one was supposed to be living at the property, but that a resident who is cleaning the property stays there during the daytime.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if the intention was to redo the house to meet all the standards and codes.

Mr. Nugent stated yes.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if there was a timeframe and dollar amount for the house repairs.

Mr. Nugent stated that he has not gotten an exact amount for the house repairs, but that he did have an estimate for the interior of the house at 11,000 dollars, and was waiting for further bids.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked when the house repair was going to start and the proposed time limit for finishing.

Mr. Nugent stated that the holidays have caused a delay, and he was waiting for the result of the hearing, but believes it could be repaired in 60 to 90 days.

 

Ms. Gann-Curry asked how long the property had been in this condition.

Mr. Nugent stated 3 to 4 years.

 

Ms. Gann-Curry asked why.

Mr. Nugent stated that after the recession the property was low on his priority to repair, and that he was repairing other houses.

 

The public hearing was opened at 7:38 P.M.

 

Glen Rogers – Nassau Bay Lane – stated that he has done lots of remodeling and believes that the house is solid because of the house’s steel framing; he also stated that he has repaired multiple houses similar to this one, and believes the house could be repaired without difficulty, the yard is being cleaned, the 60 to 90 day repair timeframe could be easily meet, and the house could be made safe and cleaned within 30 days.                                                                                     

 

The public hearing was closed at 7:40 P.M.

 

The following Findings were rendered:

 

Item 1 was marked.

 

Item 2 was marked.

 

Item 3 was marked.

 

Item 4 was marked.

 

Item 5 was marked.

 

Item 6 was marked.

 

Item 7 was marked.

 

Item 8 was marked.

 

Item 10 was marked.

 

Item 11 was marked.

 

Item 12 was marked.

 

The following Orders were rendered:

 

Item 1 was marked.

 

Item 2 was marked no later than January 15, 2016.

 

Item 2 was marked no later than January 8, 2016

 

Item 4 was marked.

 

Item 6 was marked no later than January 28, 2016, removal of the dead tree.

 

Item 9 was marked February 4, 2016.

 

Item 10 was marked to appear and provide a detailed timeline and scope of work, provide staff status report by January 28th, and include evidence of engineering, cost estimates, and other necessary documentation.

 

The request to secure the building by boarding the windows and doors, including the large exterior holes, and that these conditions will remain even if the property is sold before the next compliance hearing was noted in Section V, Special Additional Findings for Demolition if Applicable. The City was also requested to file the orders with the property records.

 

Mr. Carpenter asked that the commissioner give a specific deadline for when the house would be demolished if no repairs had been made.

 

Mr. Hendershot asked if all the permitting could be done within 60 days.

Mr. Arevalo stated that they will need to submit engineering plans, electrical and plumbing will need to be redone, the repairs will require licensed contractors, the repairs will be fairly expensive to meet all standards and codes, and that a permit will not be issued until all of the proper documentation has been submitted.

 

Mr. Christiansen asked if that would require engineering drawings that are stamped and certified.

Mr. Arevalo stated yes, for Windstorm requirements.

 

Ms. Benoit asked for a suggested timeline to check back in with the board or if the City wanted to handle the matter.

Mr. Arevalo stated that it could be done either way, but that it all depends on whether the property owner can get the required permits.

 

Ms. Benoit commented that she wanted the item to come before the board again, with a timeline, safety repairs, a complete list of required permits, and updates.

 

Mr. Nugent commented that his timeline for repairs is after he receives his needed permits, and asked for further time to complete the repairs, if the property is bought.

 

Mr. Hendershot stated that if the order stated 30 days, it will be 30 days regardless if the property is bought, and that the new owner would still need to come before the board with updates.

 

Mr. Rogers commented that he had no problem with getting permits, giving updates, engineering drawings, and getting electrical and plumbing work done.

Mr. Hendershot commented that he wanted work done before the next hurricane season.

 

Ms. Villarreal commented that the board should add the conditions that the orders be filed with the property records and that the conditions will run with the property.

 

Mr. Hendershot made a motion to approve the Compliance Order as written.

Ms. Gann-Curry seconded the motion.

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

 

VII.           Staff Comments

Mr. Linenschmidt commented that during the December meeting it was decided to postpone the appointments and reappointments for boards and commissions, and staff was working with the City Attorney to setup a meeting time for additional training.

 

VIII.         Adjournment

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

 

 

 

___________________________________                   ______________________________

Ryan Granata                                                             James R. Christiansen,

Planning Manager, Planning & Development             Chairperson, Zoning Board of Adjustment/  

                                                                                    Building and Standards Commission