HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous
College Station
TheD raftingB oard
846-2522
~-
~. .~Ak~t~ ~
Q,'\~" 'b,*l;g .
p~ -70
~~f1L
tf 1-70 J
::;ik- /thad Iv
~ ~ ~~cL rU-~WOAL
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~kf Q!-twL
~. ~~tt.
~Q~ ~.~(lG.tJu
\ '\ \\~" .. . ..~"~~'., Ql~.
~~.\:2f ~~
L--.
~
('\IV
~.
10
k
~
/02-1/3
1104 Guadalupe
College Station, Texas
June 8, 1985
To: Kathy Locke, City"Attorney
City....Council.Members
Plannin~.. and Zoning'..CommissionMembers
Re: Lawsuit -'overd.aycare center at 2014 Langford, College Station
This is to inform you of the. outcome ora lawsuit filed by neighbors living
on Guadalupe and Langford in College Station. Thela,wsuit resulted frana decision
made by the Planning & Zoning. Commission .afte~hearings on<August 5. and August 19,
1982. This decision granted a Conditional Use Permit to Andrea Mills to operate a
daycare center in her home at 2014 Langford as long as she lived there. Despite
testimonyfranthe.neighborsindicatingtheirdispleasureovertheexcessivenoise
and traffic.and theresultingdevaluation.ofpropertyvalue.(the:criteria.for the
granting of such a permit did not meetwith.thecr1terialisted<~orgranting of such
a permit),theCanmission, in a split decision, _~ld~to test~ony by clients of
Mrs. Mills and other Registered Family Hane (daycare) owners intheci ty.
As a representative....of neighbors from."Guadalupeand' Langford .(2Jin all) t I
wrote theCityCouneilaskingthem' to review this permit according to the procedures
allowed at that time. In addition, we sought legal advice .as we felt this daycare
oenter was indeed a ttbusinessu and as such was in violation of our deed restrictions.
After many long delays, this oasewent to court. The results are as follows:
September 1982
November' 28-
December '1, 1983
February J, 1984
~.tober'.1984
J anuarylO, 198.5
January23,1985
February? 1985
March 8........1985
April 17. 1985
April 25,1985
May 22, 1985
June. 7, 1985
Suit filed<again~tthe "Mills I Daycare Center at
2014 Langford, College Station, Texas
Trial Court ruled in our favor on. 4 of 5... Special Issues
presented. This was a trial by jury.
Judge overruled jury finding on.. 5th Special Issue and
found for us 'on 8,11 5 .issues
Mills appealed case to Circuit Court of Appeals
Circuit. Court of Appeals ruled in our favor
Mills appealed. to Cirouit Court of Appeals fora re-hearing
Motionfbr' re-hearing by Court of Appeals was denied
Mills 'appealed to. the Supreme. Court or.. Texas
Supreme Court of Texas demed> their request to be heard
Mills appealed to' Supreme Cowrt of Texas ..to. reconsider
their decision
Supreme Court Qf'Texasdeniedtheir request for a hearing
and ordered that the judgment (rendered in early 1984) be
enforced
Injunction against the Mills' Daycare Center at 2014 Langford
in. force
A syou can see. thisca.sehas .bee.nlengthy.fraughtw1t~delays, frustrating t
and expensivef'or both sides. According to the ru11ngfromtheCourtof Appeals, the
case isrecommendedt.o<bepublished in ~helaw books as no similar case has been
heard thus far. Inasense, it set a precedent.
iJilo.
continued to Locke, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Members
2
I am writing this letter not only to inform you of the results but also to
ask you to consider these findings before. putting anyone else in this position.
Before allowing future conditional use permits, it would be most desirable to
consider . the.' feelings" or.. the neighbors who.. live .in the. nei~hborhood.' as being of
great importance and also to consider whether or not deed restrictions are in force.
I'm not requesting you toenforced.eedrestrictions as that is not aright or
obligationoftheoity;< I'm merely asking you to consider our feelings and at least
not to grant a permit which would deny us of our deed restrictions. . . These restrictions
have,in this case, proven to be the only protection thatwe,p:ropertyowners had
since < the city zoning laws allowed the > Planning .& Zoning Commission> to grant a
Conditional Use Permit that was a violation of our deedrestrictions--protection
given us by the state of Texas as registered in the Courthouse.
Please oonsiderthefindings of this case in future deliberations regarding
these issues. The Courts '.' !ounda daycare.centertobe.' a business and '~in
violation.. of the deed restriction "residential use only."
Thank you for your consideration and deliberation of this information~
;. i . cer~1t,
....:7,~ 'i>>dL...V......
ay Hesby l.
enclosures: copy of the Judgment
Re:
Use "Perndt .....for
2014 Langford
care centertorllP to nine
In the months since the child care center.in the home at
2014, Langt'ordha sgrOW'n to.. i t8.. large numbers , .. Ihaye .'. t'elt . strongly-
about the ma.'ttel". .. In respect for the people . who reside there and in
an attempt. not to hurt any feelings,. I have not expressed. my own
concerns. However, sinoeI am more directly affected than anyone else,
lam writing to you in your capao1tyas a of the Planning and
Zoning .GOlmni S 8i on.
Upon purchasingthepro~rtyinCamelotandbt1ilding my home there,
I-wasassured.thatnolot wouldbe.usedforotherthanrssidential
purposes as outlined:tnthedeedrestrictions.Operationofaday care
center-is apurposeoth.erthanresidential. This operation devalues my
property.
carecenteradver:sely . affect our "lives.
The first is t.rafficsafety. I\W drive~'"ayisnexttothe driveway
at .2014. . ApprOJdmatelytwentY...five.. pre~teenage children reside in the
houses on t~elldead-endlfsectionofLangford.The busiest times for
deliveryandpick:-upofohildrenatth~ day care center are also times
whenthechildr'en 'Who live in the area arelike13rtobe.onthestreet.
In th~ mornings~children. are going to . school; ..the. late ... ~fternoons are
the natural playtimes. Since this is not a through street, each >car must
either stay onthe street ,turn around at the cul-de-sac and again drive
down the street. .... or.pull into a residentia1 . driveway,backup, . and turn
around. . .At acapaoit.yof.nine children daily, with each 'chi~dbaing
delivered and picked up and each car having to retrace its path, this
generateshan extra thirty-six transits daily, most at already peak
congestion periods.
The second.. aspect is . noise.. Chi:i.dren.atplay create noise; such is
natural..a.nd assumed. . Theplaya,rea ofthe>chiltir-en at the. day care center
is adjacent to the . outdoor living area in my yard. At my expense I
fenced the yard for priva,cy.. Howev~r,.. the constancy of daytime raoket
prevents. my enjoying 8 > quiet time for reading or relaxing outdoors on my
patio. Theno1seisa perpetual irritation to any activity in my yard.
I appreciate your consideration in this matter.
S~;}:'
~U1ram
. .
f[2 -713
'lilt
~~:..
July 2J. 1981
Planning & ZoningCom.m.issi(.>:n
City.of.CollegeStation
College Sta,tion, Texas
Re: Cond"itional TJse Perm.it for home nursery at 2014 Langford..
\ve the un.d,ersigned, wish to oppose this or a.ny proposed. conditional
llsepermit which .does not adhere .tothe'd.eed; restrictions as filed by
Tom Borski,d.eveloper of this area (aka Camelot, Sect1on4). . (Attached)
1) The purpose of" deed, restrictions is' to protect property owner's.
Inasmuch .as they' 'are. a legal d,Qoument, 'duly recorded in the
oountycourthouse,and,theyrepresent'apromise to the property
owners, they should be upheld.
~) 'We feel that this or. any small business in the home would
devalue thehoDtfJs.and property ~n O\1r neighborhood. .rh~
neigh.borhood 1s .zoned,as .singleresid.ential.homes. ~,'~looked
for an area < such a.s tIdswb.ere businesses would not be al,lowed,.
Upon purchasing iOU'r homes in this area. and, in some cases, prior
to thecomplete~ervelopneRtor this area, we 'wereassu,red that
no exeeptionsw()111a. be mad,e in these deed restrictions.
tlNolot shall ever be used for any purpose except residential
purposes. .. 11 (-#1)
"No noxious or offensive aotivity shall be permitted.. .which
may."beeome a nuisance .to theneighborhood.u <#8)
uThese.oovenantsare to.runwiththe land and shall be binding
onallparties;s,nd all persons claiming ,u11der them for a
perfod,Qf tWe~ty-rive (2.5) years trOlllthedatethese
covenants are' recorded,... ';'(November 11, 19(75) (114)
:3) The noise from 6-~i" ehildrenin a .nursery has already created, an
annoyance for several homes in the immediate vicinity.
4) Lang!prd, acul.-de-sac in the vicinity of this home. was . not
designed for the. heavier. traffic 'Which this business creates.
It would be both annoying andhazarclous$pa~tieu1arly in: the
mornil1g(7:30-8:JO) wb.en, parents drop th,eir children off. . This
street (a three-way corner) is a.pproximately. one ~ock~rom t-he
A&l1 Consolidated,HighSchool and three blooks from South Knoll
ElemeJ.)tarySehool. There is already a great deal of foot., bi;,yole,
and auto traffic 'on this street at those times, particularly'
during the 'sch.ool. year.
5) Several hcnesin this immediate area have hot tubs which are
properly enclosed and carefully locked.. T,hey'would, however,
present a possible hazard if a,childwere to slip Elway' unnoticed
and, sneak into one of these ya.rds.
-:II
~"r
^'
p.2 Condi tiorlal
Permit
obllgatedtouphold them. It l\TOUld seem, however, .thatthey do present
a problem for theConunissi.on, and that your position is, at best, tenuous.
On p. .58, Section 15 of the Zoning Ordinance8.50,you will find the
following:
UIn their interpretation and application, the provisions of this
ordina.nce shallbaheldtobe minimum requirements adopted'forthe
promotion o.fpublichealth. safety ,morals,' and general'welfare.
\.Jhenever the requirements of this ordinance are at variancf With the
requirements of any other lawfully adopted ,rules, regulati~ns,or
ordinances,. the requirement that is most restrictive or thittimposes
higherstandardsasdets:rminad bytheZonirig Official sha.ll
govern.1t (College station Zoning Ordinance 850)
This ex:planation would 'seemto be in favor of deed restrictions where they
are mora restrictive than the minimum requirements adopted by this ordina.nce.
You might have the City Attorney do serne research on this subject.
It.would certainly save the Commission time when. regarding requests of this
nature. It would. also save the time of individuals' 'Who must collect
neighborhood opinions ..on thesmne. rfthe cityoouldlwould take a.stand
regardingdeedrestrictions~(andit'W'OuldoertB.inly~eemthat Section 15,
p.58 does) ,itwould seem to be a desirable thing in terms of time,
money,. and efforts for "all concerned.
Please, take this 'intoconsid.eration and make a ruling regarding
deed restrictions.
I'm Borry for the length of this letter but I felt you, too,might
benef! t from these suggesti ons.
Thankyou.for'yourtime.
l) ,,~~
1",':
,Re: Conditional",' Use Permit at ..2014 Langford
page 2
For the previously mentiQned, reasons,.. we protest the request made
for a conditional. use.. permit.
(Thesi atures..belowwere opt ai ned only from . that area of .Gllad.a.lupe . and,
Langford, whiehreceived letttrsorare directlyafreeted-by the reasons
previously mentioed,.)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
- ........
,
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Address. .' . .
/1~#-;(!&~fI~~ ~, ~
{Lcf)1J.. _(~i.i!41 to 0 ~
~t)~ ~~tI~~u~~
v
._ll~~~~& .A.-~
//tJ3...... ~~fk./A.u~,.,..........IL.,. .
~_t... . __.~ j;d4d~'" I!!' L
~..~"3 ...sa~~~te- ,. ~
~Lit2tE. ..~~Ciclo/v,Ple
I :z ()..:2J
~_(j~b: ~
.~
~~/
l(!~r~~ ._
_\b~e...~~\4-r~_
Lt)11 ~~,_ ~
.. .~di~ ..-=
/0 f-5 II
." ,.....J!.~~. 1 -L --A,,~_ ~ .'~"l~..; -4..._ .ltl"4... .~~_
lOLL ./-j
lOll
L-dtf ~ __
I , ~ f
!;;dI~(;;i~~=
~~.~
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
8/~
~
(..~ ~~...
Re: Cond,itional'TJse 'Permit .at. 2014 Langford
page :3
2;_
26.
e,l
t1
27.
:;0.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
:;6.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
I J-Ot7 ~~l
2-00 0, -I.%.~~),i)l. ~~ · ~~A _
:,. "..' "'" ,,,".. .... ,. .-J
~~8!~~i'~Sht!olL~~ s~~ I~
LO L~ .Q6t.t2'-;;~L. i? ,QS' '
.t{?/t7--6~(ffJtiu,-e ~~~~
&-~"~rlZ-'7 . ~.~,
rLo 1,0 .'. ",,,, .. ... .' CfS
44~
/3 1
~,O'~.7
/.:2-0 I
: Lc...~
....O'Ve:.D~.
j ~,~~~
t:c--....--------. '"~ ..~
~,._.....~_...._.....,
City of College Station
POST OFFICE BOX'9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
August 5, 1982
TO:
Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Jim Callaway
SUBJECT:
Cend i tionalUse P,ermi t - Daycare ,Center (82-713)
The Planning gepartment has received.the fel10wing form letter which
has been'" signed by the "lis,t.",()fneighborsbelow,indicatlng they are
not ,oppos:ed to the Da.ycare 'Center at 2014 langfo,r-d. 'Copies of these
signed letters- will be part of the permanent file,.
"T'h i 5
t1 i 115
'to'gran t i ng Andrea
Also received
opposition to
which are in
James M. Callaway
Ass't Director of Planning
JC/sjv
City of College Station
POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840
August 11, 1982
TO WHOM IT MAYC.ONCERN:
On Augus,t 5,1982, the Planning and Zoning CommissJon held a public
hearing concerningc6nsideration o'f- grantlnga conditional use permit
for a daycare' center at the home located at 2014 Lang'fo-rd. No decision
was reached on ,thIs agenda i.temon that date, and tAe item was tabled.
Consideration of granting thiscondi.t-lona,l'us.epermit will again be
on the agenda at the re,gular meeting ofthePlannln.g, and Zoning
Commission on August 19 19$2. The me,eting wi lL"be held in the
Council R00ms. at will convene a"t 7:,00 p.m.
a publ ic
use permit
decision
tabled.
Consideration of granting this condi-tional use permit will again be
9n.thea'g'enda at the re,gular meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission on August 19, 1982. The me,etingwill. beheld in the
Council Rooms at City Ha,ll , and ,wi'll convene a't 7:00 p.m.
the office of the
. . ::.' " .' . . :.", ',' '... '.' . .~
'.:. ;':.'.,. ...:..... "'. .":-' -.'
. . . '. . .' .' ," . . .
. .. '"
.......... -.,' . ,", .
to. thebaoy;sitfing. activities
beingconductedat201gL.angfor~.Myol:>servan(!es are that the
children are well taken careo.r.:'an:d under reliable supervision.
This is "a residential neighborhood and most of the families have
childre'n~' so there' snothing unusual about having children around.
~fy opinion is to . grant the conditional use permit for the so-called
"day care center" and let the babysitting activities resume normalcy.
"'-;-'-, "'- '.' ..~. \\%
\.~., ~ A
~ .' '-
<:::::_i... .
D~othYHa.1 kamp ..
2101 Langford
I
I
\ ~
i._~-.--.. ._..__.....______..._______...___._-.-_'------~.-..~-.___~---_...-,~..--.------....- __..__._.___...__-.-.-~6'2-L ~-.. .--~- .:'.... ....-..-.-----.-.........--.------. .-.... ...-.-
~_____-.._- ____~.---------------._-----c------------.. __....__-----....--------..------~_r_.S;---:iz.~-/'t)(--. ".-- . .....
\
I
...--..-.-.. ..._--_.._,._._._.._._-_...-...-._.-----~----_.---_.,.. ---- _.__..__.._._---_...._.._._-_.__..._._~._.__._-----.._.__._.- ,,- .... ._- -' ....--...- -------. ....--.-..-.. . --.-'.-
1:..,---.~1 E-A.---- '~~-.-. - ~d-. _._._.L.--:.------.---.----~._--..--------.--..-.-.--.-----....---.------...--.----------.
i ---7 0 /
: ____.____ ._.__...__..c__.__.____.__.._.-.-.--..-----..--.----.. .__.___-,.-.---... ..---.-..-..-.-.---....--..-. c. -.--.. -... .-.-.-.....-----.----..---...--.-....-....- . ..
\...".".."-_.._.,,.._.._~--,,_.._,,~,---,<_._._---,-------"-""_.._"--.--_.._~---" ..,..-----.----.-......-.----.-. . -- ..__.~-_.__.._----_._----_._.._.~._-_.__.._--_.._.:._..._._. .-----.----.-----.--------...-------..-.----.....- --...-..'-'
ill .. . /i)
i--- .._b~ ./2:k1L..-~~~-1-~-------
l..----ry-,.--.......---'--..---.---:.--.------;~--~---..---------.;;---..-------------..---Z--'d--------- ------
~--~_:_-----~_.__.._---~-~~~-~-~~.~~--
:\.):J4i'4--'.lr..-:~l.-~--~~~ -~) f~ c-(f~ ~ ~ G-
, ,.. -- ..-.-. .. _.._.__.~._._--~---_._-_......--.._-- _._--~._. ...------.--.--.--. ----------...------- --.--...--..-.... ..-.....---. ---- ...~.._----... -_..-~_...-_.' --~. . .--.-.- -.....-.. .... .-... ..... .... ---. . ..-..-.... .
i, ~~KJJi~.
,', ~ ,.., ~
I
\.,-,---~-~.-~--_..._.._"_.~~~~-"..<-,.".'".,-'~_....,,~""'-,"..~---,--_._-_..."..~.,._...-.,._.~-~_...-~,-....__. ."..-.......".." .. ,,~~-~-"" '<"" ..... " .-.. ---~."",-,,'-'
I
\
i
I
I I
I . .. ,.. ... fJ ..'..... .. . ..'. ,.... .....' ..
~~ ~~~ ~~
i
!- ---- ----" ------------------------- ------ -- _.- --" - -_.- ---- ----- -- --- . -~ -~-----~ -' - ------ ---------- ---- "...-.....----.,--...""',.".."...-.---.----...........""..----
".__~__..,._.....,., ...._ ..__.._,._____-C._....M.'.. .._"..._... .---.-~--..----~---.._,,-._----..-..----------~...."'..----..-,.,-..---------.---...-..,,-.~--.._.- -...--...-",,,.-- --..-'''--'--'- ..------.---."....---.~..-'-..... -.'''-'-.'' -..-.-~-.."--,.,,,.-.--..--.-.,_.-"----.,.... . ..---,-,-""-..' ...... .,-..-'.' .....-----...--.,---- ,....----..-,----.,.- ----.--
, ' .t
,"". ~....,-.,~~>...........-~~".....~='..-.-.--........,,-~-~'~-...,_~~~=-=-"'.""=>-~ ~~.__,_"_.~_.._~"'.,~R.,^~-,~~~_"'"~,..."""',._~_,,...,,"_._.~__...~ ~-~"" --"-~~~,,,...-.-._---~.-_..~,-~.'" ~~,,-~ .." -~ -. ,~."
I
I
j--,-_. , ,,,.-..- ..,,---.---.--.---.--.-.. -------------------.,--..-',----..-----......--------......-...- ............. -.' .,,,_.. ,.......... --"- -. _.... ..,,,. .."". .. -.. .. "..-... - ...... .... ....,---
~ . >._"._,,>._~____,_.^~_.~,_,~,-_._-._-.,................-.-'.,.-UC..~O--.,.,.,"._.-__-.-o--;-----~_._:___;--C""'--:--~~."~d.,.r-..--_".-.-: ':___--:-~::--:-,~----:.>-.-::"_>,.y.-' '~~_~.':__..~__-,---.-_::_- - .:.-~:~~.-:-~.~:~~.,----.. _...~u~_--:--:-::--"-e.:-.--:::-~~--_:_-::-..: ---~.:-..., .- -:-~~------:-:-~-::-~:~_,..,...,--~~
~c2 -78
I am opposed to the granttn'g ofa Conditi onal Use Permi t to Andrea Mi 11 s,
2014langford.A day care center of the magnitude that t.1s . Mills was
operating, in violation of deed restrictions, is most certainly a com-
merei al enterprise. A commerc; al enterprise of thi snature i snot j n
harmony with the residential nature of our neighborhood. A commercial
enterprise wi 11 devalue the single family dwell i ngs that campl ete ly sur-
round Ms. Mills. house. My house, located at 1100 Guadalupe, is my only
major investment. It would not be fair to have my property devalued
when alternatives are available to Ms. Mills and the parents of the children.
This. letter is intended to restate my objection to the
grantin.gof the Conditiona.l TJse Permit for a day-care
~en.ter ~t 2014 Langfora. Iv1y . primary objection is' on the
grounds tha_tthe deed restrictions, a duly recorded legal
document, protect me and my property from such invasions.
I also object on the grounds that the three requirements
for the issuing or a Conditional Use Permit in College
station are not met in this request.
t9c2-7/3 '
c: ,v
"/-:"
/c:
./
:/ t"'f
('7 J~
t... /7
/ {' . . / :,~'7
1,....;1
~_ ~/.,~oc.~
l-c:;- 7"
r:;.
.,"'~~ /'1'/V~
.~ ;;- .:/'~?/ / )'...
- ~-'\
._,-.-'"
("'.
(j/ t: )'1"7 j (,. ..~.i
;~c!""'~', ,.
'-_ .c.7~'.h' ...5-- ,:::.'-
/:::;. /....,. ,.:......
/J?c
..11' ~?
-/7"-:;-IcE'- .
/'}"7 c' (~~;
~.~,,,!,, ~fY"""'t.:.<~'
"...-t .--
~ t:.-:;.-
( J
/9./.
/"/ '-~~ ~S
, , .,_, ~.:. - ,.,11 ;/ ~/c..;c~:-
_,i'I...,/'J;f
/t:2? C:"-- /i.C ,""'r //'"V ~~>
/;;
/'/\/' r-.jr~.
~__fC.'_
,--.
~ .....- ~ ." .?-':""\/' .
~,,:.. /rl C . c'- /:2- t..:::. i- Y
.~ 7/. 21 a-ec?
.. ,~-
L-,.-" /)I'. 1 {';-' ,_ c.... ....-;- /./.1,.,..
~...
// cs G~lnD n.l....'-: ,..;~~
~~-7/~
1202 Guadalupe
College Station, Texas 77840 '
. August 12, 1982
August 10, 1982
Planning and Zoning Commission
City... Hall
College Station, TX 77840
Commissioners:
I wou'ldl i ke: to address the issue of Mrs. Mills lappli cati on for
a permit to keeps.ix to nine small children in herhorne at 201\4 Langford
in College Station.. I hope to. dispel some of the fears of Guadalupe
Str'eet residentsandalso>address the issue of inhomechildcarein
general.
First, letme'state that I am NadineStuth of 1214 S.Ridgefield
inCollegeStatlon {two blocks from the. area concerned}.. .' I am also a
cl i ent of .M'rs .r~i]l s. My .two children, ages 2 years and 3 y'ears, have
been staying with Mrs. Mi]ls.ona part-time basis for one year and four
months.
The residents of Guadalupe Street. seem to havethreeconce~ns:
(1) traffic, (2) noise and {3} devaluati.on of. quality in the neighbor-
hood. I would like to. comment on the apparent lack of understanding
concerning these issues
(1) TRAFFIC:A~apart-time cli entbf Mrs. Mills, T have had the
opportunity to. deliver and pick-up my children at.various times of the
morning and afternoon. I have never seen excessive or even above normal
neighborhood traffic, except that of the high sch90lstudents using
the Guadal. u pe '" Street .... through-route to campus. .' .The<highschoo 1 . th,rough.
traffic turns off Langford 200 yards before one reaches Mrs. .Mi'll s'
residence. 1 have neverbeennel d-upby traffic' at her> home . .or. even
had to unload my chi ldrenatthe curbdurin9> themorni' ngrush . hours .
Because Mrs.. Mills attracts and enjoys catering to thene.edsof part-
time clientele, the potential traffic build-up is avoided completelY'e
(2) NOISE: Eachdayth~at I came to pick up my children at Mrs.
Mills residence, I ,am hard pressed to know' whether to ring the door-
bellar.9o'tothe backyard to find Mrs. Mills and the children. I
caul dnottell ,by Ii sten; ngwh,ether the chi Idren were i nstde or outs tde
due to the IIlackllofnoise. My questions here are: If th.ere ;,"s
excessive noise'why has it taken.over a year'for neighbors to notice?
andwhy,>,whenI.amtryingto hear them, is it a difficult task? The
fact that Mrs. Millshas.beenmistakingly operating at the. capaci:ty'
requestedinherspec.ial use permit application and defi'ni'tely- plans
for no . further. expansion assures that the fear of excessive nots-e i,s
unfounded.
#2-78
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 10, 1982
Page 2
(3) DEVALUATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY: I believe at least one
of the. commissi on I smembers has vis ;ted J~rs. M; 11 sires i dence and can
assure you that her home is not 'equ;ppedany. differently. than a normal
family home. The play equipment in her backyard is the same as that
owned. by many of her neighbors. Residents of a ',street such as Guadalupe
surely could'notbeupset by the presence of a swing set in light of the
factthatA&MConsoli dated High School and A&M Chur.chofGhri stdom;nate
the south,.si.de. of the' subdivis i'on and . South Knoll Elementary st.andsat
the north end of the subd;vis;on'~'I live adjacent to South Kno:ll School
and would dare say that.outdoor activities of the'se school children far
exceed those of six pre-schoolers. '
My fear is that.what'started out as a personal conflict between two
neighbors.over an unrelated matter will become the demise of all family
homechildcareservices in Gollege Station. If Mrs,. .Mil.lsis not allowed
a special"~use pe'rmit, then in. all fairness .'allresident;~al,are,as':'.~s:houjHd
be. equally protectedfrom:sma lJi n...homecommerci alactiv'ity,including
sales of home products, crafts, etc,. Familyhomechildcare tsanessential
community. and economic service. Parents working part-time and student-
parents cannot afford to pay. the full-time rates commercial '. iinstituttons
must charge.. Also, some par.ents,prefer to find one person 'wttH.c0mpa!tible
child rearing philosophies to taKe care of a small number of,ch.tldren, tn
a home atmosphere.
Signees of the petition against a special-use permit being issued'
to Mrs. Mills are in effectassign;ngin~home care'for chi'ldren to Bryan
or so-ca lledlowervaluedneighborhoods. Thi sattitudei's counter-
productive to free enterpr:isewhich. thtscommunity' needs and s'macKs.>of
class di scrimi,nat;on. .Tbi s'isespeciallytrue,.whenone consid~rs-that
's everaloftheresi dences in! the very' s'ubdi vi s;on namedinthe'ipe~t tt9n
have distributor-type businesses as well as other service busi~es~es ~n
their homeswntch require residential pick-up and deliveryand!,in..:horn~,
sales meetings.. Some of these other businesses have been advent;s.ed~n
local newspapers and even the ,yellow pages.
It is easy to gather support fora "protect our neighborhood" cal)1paign
without peopl eknowingwhattheyare agai nst or. what they are suppos'ed
to be protecting the neighborhood from. This seems.to be what Mrs. Mills'
neighbor, Mrs. Love, has done.
~e:<-lE
Planning and Zoning Commission
AugustlO, 1982
Page 3
I. am sorry that what should have. b.eenaminorproblembetween tw'o
neighbors ov.eran unrelated subject has become suchan;ssue. In-,home
chi ldcarerequi res no permanentalterati on or addt,ti on. to.pr'opertyand
in noway alters. thecharacterof'afamilyoriented nei'ghborhood. '.. Thi s
i ses peei a.lly ... true~n this. cas e . where. ther~ are over.. fOr'ty.doeumented
pre-school and school age'childrenresiding and playtng in the i'mmedia.te
vacinityofMrs. Mills' residence. .
I thank you for your time and patience in allowing me to present
my views on' this important moral question.
Si ncere]y,
,/""\. /1 .' ';0...
( rlC>trW~
N'a~ine R. Stuth
1214 S. Ridgefield
College Station, TX 77840
~d?-7B
August 18, 1982
PlanningandZoning.Commission
City of College Station
PO Bo.x996o
1101 '.Texas .Avenue
College Station, TX 77840
Dear Sirs:
RE': Conditional use permit for day care center at
2014 Langford (Mrs.. A. Mills)
As we do not plan to attend the second. public hearing
on August 19, 1982 ,concerning the above , this statement
is submitted for your information and use.
We live next door to Mrs. Mills and, have no objection
to her care of several small children. Mrs. Mills has
explained to us that she plans to care for only about
sixJ~children,generallyunder the age of 4, and for
alimi.ted time of approximately 1 to 2 years'. W~(:l
have not encountered an objectionable noise level,
nor a significant traffic problem with the number
of children she has kept up .to this time.
Sincerely yours,
f;~Q!les
~~~
Joan Quarles
2012 Langford
College Station, TX 77840
Tx. 77840
operating
I ha.ve been told
ram a partner in Domestic Services Agency
service.
I handle all the book-}~eeping for the business J do some of the e~$timates t
and assist in checking the employees t work. Iione of these tasks creates
any situation which would affect my neighbors . Though I do go to customers'
home. There
is no sign advert~sing our business and I am sure there are people in
in part because we knew
a co~mercial establishment
home in 1Jomfortable neighborhood.
opposeCi to cft.lldren . I expected
when were yoUnger just
However, the
care to
c{1eck
\
\
A day care c~nter would certainly contribute to de!,:valuation of our
I
Ask yo}1rself this question. If you w"ere co~sidering the purchase
similar in almost all aspects except that one had a day care
to it. which of the homes would you choose.
have absolutely nothing against the Mills. I do ~hin~ it
that when they moved here.they did not roore carefully
the zoning regulations for College Station.
SinC~'L ~{ ~~~o
~beth B. Vastano
"I'
-CoPY'-
July 19, ~982
Mr. W. D. Love
1102 Guadalupe Drtve
College Station, Texas 77840
Dear Mr. Love:
This is to formally apolpgizeto'you and your wife ~or the volleyball
landing in your<garden.two' times one week ago on Sunday evening, July 11.
My party guest who c1imb~d over your fence to retreivethe ball should have
first requested yourpet11lission.
This letter is also a plea for open and' friend1y>communication between you
andl on all matters concerning our common property line (including fencing,
trees, and plants). I did not expect your wife's hostile reaction directed
at my guest and myself for the ball mistakenly. going over your fence, and
I reacted to her sho.uting accordingly. In hinds.ight I feel that she and I
both overreacted toan.eyent which 1 shall try not to let happen again. I
am considering building C3. higher fence than yours on my property along the
line adjoining yours topelp prevent any of our balls from landing in your
back yard again.
Last Friday, July 18,1 received a certified letter from College Station
zoning official Jane Kee. She informed me. that complaints had been made
to her last week because of excessive noise from my wife's day care activities,
and that my wife~ascaring for more than the maximum number of day care
children allowed by a College Station zoning or'dinance. 1 feel it was the
volleyball incident which instigated this, because at that time your wife
accused us of not being licensed to. provide.care in our home. When 1 assured
your wife that weare licensed ,she threatened to. confirm this and implied
some consequence ......for us if untrue.
Upon confirming that we do have a day care license,your wife apparently
discoveredthe"zoning'ordinance limitation of which we were unaware.
According to Jane Kee, the principalcomplaintis.for noise associated
wi th my wife's day care activity . I find. this hard to ufi~erstand coming
from you, because at the time ofthevo'lleyball'. incident::} pointedly asked
you two tim.es if thenoi~e from. our party in progress bothered you. Both
~Jmes you answered , "no." . If noise, !froman outdoo.r' Bartl at which I had
30 2uests did notbothe.rxou. I fi~di~thard tobe1ievethat noise from
-.I:fou'r to six small .day ..' care. children.could ~other .you. Mor.eover, the day
. care children spend.'mo-st'. . of- their time playing close to the back of my
house where we have toys for them. This is ,far from your fence line.
My wife and I cons;id!.rherday care. activity to bean important communi,g
. sery-ice,. Wetllere.wreplan to, apply for a conditional use permit in order
to be incompliancewith'zoning requirements and allow for continuation of
mywifetsday care"activ~ty for the licensed number of children. 1 hope
you will not oppose us in this. I assure you we will do everything possible
. 2.
to minimize noise from these few small children. I also assure you that
my wife has not and will not encourage these children to play with balls.
These children are so small it is unlikely theycQuld throw a.ball over
your fence even if they did play with one.
In closing,Iagain appeal to you for a good neighborly relationship so
that we. can. openly talk about common prob.lems. If you perceive a problem
concerning our two properties I would appreciate it if youwou.ldcome and
talk with me about it before taking action, and I will give you> the same
consideration.! feel we should .be able to resolve our mutual p:roblems
in a rational manner without allowing them to get outofhandIEil<ethe
volleyball incident. I hope you will agree, because thiskincf of 'confron-
tation atmosphere makes life unpleasant for all. concerned.
Your neighbor,
(k~~
Allan S.. Mills
2014 Langford
College Station,
Texas 77840
cc'.ConcernedParties
P.s.
July II was. the 'first time Ihada volleyball game in my back yard
and I do not plan to have anymore.
'. ~
August 9, 1982
~/
Commissioner Michael W. Fleming
Planning Commission
. City of College Station
College Station, Texas 77841
Dear Commissioner Fleming :
My wife Andrea and I regret that the Planning Commission could not
r1!'e'a{ch'a~d:'ecision'a:t"t.heAugust 5 hearing regarding Andrea 'sapplica tion
for a conditional use permit to provide day care in our home. On behalf
of Andrea, I feel it is important to point out to you some inaccuracies
and inconsistencies j.nrecorded testimony directed against Andrea at the
hearing, and some adciitional related facts.
First, of the f()ur people who testified complaining about noise, three
are employed full time and are not home between the hours of 8 a.m. and
4 p.m. (with the exq~ption of the summer months for_two whoa,reiteachers).
Testimony by D .We Loye(1102 Guadalupe) regarding noise from Andrea'!s day
care activitieswaspa"fticularly inaccurate and misleading. He! said, "It
is impossible for me to sleep after 7:30a.m... If so, thi.scan.np't be ,because
of Andrea's day car~ activities. The first children to arriv.e :iri the imorning
do not come before about 8 'a .m. and they are usually kept inside our;: house
until about 10 a.m. . His testimony that noise fr.om these small. chilClren
bothers him also se~TIls inconsistent with what he said at the time of the
volleyball incident which precipitated the complai.nt against Andrea (See
letter attached).
Testimony by Mr$. }Jalterscheidt (1202 Guadalupe) indicated that if
Andrea were to care ~or as many as 9 children, 36 cars per day would have
to pass her houseiI1order to drop them off and pick them up. This is not
correct because children left here byheighborhoodparents walk to the
house, and about half of the other parents bringing children to ~.. drea
bring. .sib.lings . Who ichreduces the ne.' ce.ssary numb.er. Of. car. t.riPS,' . . I would
also like to point ol1tthat }1rs. Waltersheidt t s point about her^ot tub
being a danger to thE}-children is irrelevanttotheissue,because it is
ultimately her responsibility to see that the hot".."tub does not become an ~
attractive nuisance (in legal terminology) which invites trespass and injury
Even if this were not the case, the hot tub poses little actual danger
because there are two houses between the Walterscheidts' house and ours,
and their back yard ~s completely fenced in.
,,^
Testimony by Juqy Smeins (1009 Guadalupe) indicated that a day care
home in the neighborhood would negatively affect property values. I reject
thi.s assertion because the Blanchardswho live directly across the street
from us recently had their property appraised and it appears to have in-.
creased in value during the past year by approximately 8%. They do not
feel the day care activities have affected their property value. I am
actually much more highly motivated to maintain the quality and appearance
of my property now than if Andrea were to do no day care at our residence.
I try to take particular care of my large trees which provide shade for
the children, and large trees can add up to approxima.tely 10% to nieghbor-
hood property values. The Loves (1102 Guadalupe) who instigated the com-
plaint against us, excessively flooded their large oaks which caused them
all to die this past'11lonth. My property is also impacted by the loss of
afternoon shade from these trees of th~irs.
~ .
2.
,
It is also ironic that JudySmeins (1009 Guadalupe) criticized Andrea
for having a "business" in the neighborhood which is suppos~d:IY p:r:Ol1ibited
by~es tr ic ti ons . The' f ollowig,&-..,.J!d_~l"___f_Q];"._._9:.n......i,n,c.o~r.p"o.ra~t-e.d<..,busi'nes sat
he~' residential dtlressappearsin the yelloW' ages of the phone book:
.r..
""':'":-"'~ 'O.....'"',.~''':''~ '~-'-"'.~~.,:~',''':''.'_---'~--'' "~"--""~-~~"-M"
DOMESTIC SERVlCESI"C. . . ..... '. ' .}
EFFICIENT lEAMCLEANING' '. .'. '1:
1009 Gua;~eE~~~~.~~~?~U.~~~::9~ 1954 ......
Andrea consider her dayccire"""a-c-tlvi ty a c01Il111uni service rather thana
business, she has no. employees, and her bigge~rewardfrom the.day care
is the joy of doi.ng it. We can verify that there was practically no net
profit from it this past year when all expenses and costs are taken into
account'. Furthermore, Andrea does not advertise her day care service and
never will.
To the exten ttha t noise from our back yard d'oes legitimate'ly" ,bother
some neighbors, it has occured to me that there are some seasonal factors
associated 'with noise .'which we could take steps. to ameliorate. During
last summer Andrea only cared for a couple of children periodicalily. \ It
was not until the past school year that she began taking care of. six
children. She continued this into this summer and ftwas this summer
when she received this first complaint about noise. One reason for more
noise in our-back yard in the summer may be tha-t the neighbors on our
block of Langford have over 25 school age children in aggregate. When
these children are out of school in the summer many occassionally come
to our backyard to play with my eight year old son. These children
actually make more noise than the day care pre-schoolers. If Andrea's
day care activity aggravates this normal summer situation, she could
voluntarily lower the number of children she cares for in the summer.
She could also limit the summer access to our back yard of these school
age neighborhood children. .Completely fencing in the yard as we plan to
do would help .to.accomplish this.
As a final point, I would like to emphasize that all but one of our
four closest neighbors on Langford (immediately next door to us and directly
across the street) have signed letters forwarded to your Commission which
certi:fytha.tAndrea's day care activities are, in their opinion, not having
any negative impact on our neighborhood. The one of these four ~eighbors
who did not forward such a letter to you told us this was because she had
personal reasons for wanting to stay neutral in this controversy. She told
Andrea tha t as well as being a friend.ofours she is a friend of :the Loves,
the neighbors living.dj..rectly behind us at 1102 Guadalupe who: instigated
the complaint against Andrea. However, this neighbor did tell Andrea ver-
bally that she wa.s not bothered by noise from Andrea t s day care service
and would not be unhappy if Andrea is granted a permit. O.n the contrary,
this neighbor was one of the users of Andrea's day care service during
part of the past year. Interestingly, she also said she had one of the
Loves's daughters take care of her children (at their residence' I presume),
and this is an added reason for not wan bing to take a position in the
present controversy.
In conclusion, I would like to assure you that Andrea has no plans to
expand her day care service and that we did not move to this neighborhood
so that Andrea could make a busi.neBs of this . She is basical~y a housewife
,..,
;j
3.
who does not wish to work outside of, the home until our youngest child
is old enough to go to school. Idonot feel her staying home and doing
some.day care'atthe sametime.is out of context with our immediate
neighborhood, or that it detracts from the quality and integrity of the
neighborhood in any way.
Thank you for considering Andrea's application fort.his conditional
use permit.
Sincerely,
~,ml~
lJ~X~: .~_
Allan S. Mi Is
2014 Langford, College Station
(696-3518) Home
(845-5307) Office
'\
\ ~
August '16" 1982
Dear J:..'
1m,
lam writing in regards to the request ',for 'a' ,Conditional Use Permit
for a..daycare cente.r located at".2014 'Langford. !' feel there. are' a. number
of reasons why this' should not be granted,som~ are:
1. 54 residents of immediate area signed a petition in opposition.
2. Additional traffic in the immediate...area creates. a haza:rd and
nuisance at the corner"of Guadalupe and' Langford in particular.
3. Daycarecenterwould'contribute' to'devaluation of property in
the neighbo~hood. .
4. Noise.ereatedby'aday care center' is a.nuisance.
5. Decision should be.' based, on. what. is best, for' neighborhood,
not on the.sentiments of parents from outside the neighborhood. .
Your support.would.be appreciated.
Thank you,
Q~
Judy Smeins
1009 Guadalupe
College Station, Texas
"'"
",l~4/../
I A ~.,,/
~~'
If
,"".(....0 .,/;)'l.--D
,../tJt...o
1u~
jl...."
"to:._
. "Liu:L-~1
.~~~'
7
If'.),
.;./7
~: /, I' ..-
4~~
'/
~/ ~../
, I ., f~q7
.i!,'l/ d '.
August 18,1982
Planning. arId Z:onlng.Commisslon
College.' Stat1on,. Texas.... 77841
Dear Members of ,the Commission:
I live across the street from Andrea Mills at 2017 Langford.
In looking out from my home toward hers in the normal process of
everyday life I have not notic....-#ed abnormal traffic as a resul tof
her babysitting. activi ty. I have also no t been aware of any noise
from this activity, and I do not fee11thas affected the value of
my property.
I encourage yeu to grant her the permit she is applying for
and allow her to resume her babysitting as she has been doing.
SiNcerely yours,
~8~R
..0 ",""
9\ br-,
,4 ~LAS if- /8.; I q 82-
~ICt~..11 i.n-rk. ......tt. hJZ'. '.... ... ,C. .... . "" 'I,
J ... ... . '-..J . . · 0 III I (J tHt-' "'" ( 5';) 10/1
C t'fr .H-tA-l(
Co Ife_q ~ S liLrhbh ..-re.....
J ./r~)Ca5' 77840
Dealr Lr .. ,., ...
'v~!41 155' to", eAr5 ;
r W '" u-l J 1 dz& .1--,.., .t!> .l- r -/-J
v L- X (P v-e..5'$ 1'1-1 15 u@~1J r '1 Tor, h ~
~e'iGCltlDh of Ah dv--e.~ Ph'lt5 +/)~dJ'5{~f t-1
diIdlr~ It, h~ h 0 ~ e 2014-4~\JTo'("J.. r
do VI 0 t .-h aA- ~ "4 It\f i "':j It e-v- tJ.- Con J; frOM d
U S' e-- ~t4r fI11i r h do Jt, 15 1#;// CILIA s.e ey Cef 17PH ~ s rreer/
-tv-""rJI'c) Vlot5~} J-eVttIUcuJ7Dh or ""'7 ~(rt?oe-v-1:rJ ,?(r tll1r
h ~ J,' I/~ ~.ffe?-d5 0 k fA..e- PI 0 f,. ~ o,,}, CJ(}J w h Js c> e, v-4r ·
f.. . eAt1 C-<.>lMrdJ..e- Ydk- +it? j.rCt J J, ~ -tArs- fey h1i.f:
Sa" ceYdy;
c/aYH!JJoYc! ,(' l~
~';~ 1zGLlb~
August 12,1982
To Members of the, Planning and Zoning Commission,
I am a resident of the 'Guadalupe/Langford area where a
Conditional Use Permit has been applied for a:t 2014 Langford
for the operation of a Day Care Center.
I:am opposed to this for the following reasons I
a. A Day Care Center will devalue my property. It
is a known fact that people will not want to live in a house
near a Day Care Center because it isoonsidereda business.
b. Langford is a cul-de-sac and was not designed by
city planners for traffic. Having a Day Care Center creates a
great <deal of traffic for Guadalupe and Langford than necessary
especially during school hours.
c. The additional traffic will also create a hazard to
children walking to.and from South Knoll Elementary School
andalsoA&MConsolidated High School. It is stated under
Sect10n 10-C2.3 of the Z0nin~ Ordinance, page 52, "the use will
not be detrimental to the hea.lth, wealth and sa.fety of the surrounding
neighborhood."
d. The residence that requests the permit does not have
a fenced yard,nQr does it appear to have the required parking
fora DayCare'Center as stated in the Zoning Ordinance!. page
J8, "minimum off street parking".
I feel that the Conditional Use Permit should be denied for
the above reasons. It is my hope you will vote in opposition
to the permit to allow <College Station to have privat,e neighborhoods
which will be in the best interest of the majority of the home
ownereinthat area.
Sincerely,
al03
August 12 ,1982
To Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
lama. resident of the Guadalupe/Langford area where a
Conditional .Use Permitha.s been applied for af'2014 Langford
for the operation ,of a"Day Ca.re' 'Center.
I'am opposed to this for. the following reasons.
a.. A Day Care Center will devalue my property. It
is a known fa.ct that people will not want to live inahouse
near a Day Care Center because it is considered a business.
b. Langford is a cul-de-sac and was not defSigned by
city plannex-s for traffic. Having a Day Care Centerc!reates a
great deal of traffic for Guadalupe and Langford thap. necessary
especially during school hours.
c. The additional traffic will also create a hazard to
children walking to and from South Knoll Elementary School
a.nd alsoA&MCoDSolidated High School. It is stated under
Secti.on. 10-C 2.3 of theZonin~ordi.nance, page 52, "the use will
not be detrimental to the health, wealth and safety of the surrounding
ne ighborhood". "
d. The residence that requests the permit does not have
a fenced yard, nor does it appear to have the required parking
for a Day Care Center as stated in the Zoning Ordinance, page
J8, "minimum off street parking".
I f,eel that the Conditional Use Permit should be denied for
the above reasons. It is my hope you will vote in op'position
to t~epermit to allow College Sta.tion to have private neighborhoods
whiehwillbein the best interest of the majority of the home
owners ".i,n ,tha.t area..
Sincerely,
6J~w
dcf?O~ {;i,' ,...., '"
~~~. J
J
~
August 12>. 1982
~
To Members of the Planning and ZoningCommissiona
I am a resident of the Guadalupe/Langford area. where a
Conditional Use Permit has been applied for at 2014 Langford
for the opera.tion ofa Day Care Center.
I'am opposed to this for the following reasons.
a. A Day 0a.reCenter will devalue my property. It
is a known fact that people will not want to live ina'house
near a Day Care Center because it is considered apusiness.
b. Langford is a cul-de-sac andwasnot~ee;~ign.ed by
city planners for tra.ffic. Having aDayCareCent'er.:oreates a
great deal of traffic for Guadalupe and Langfordtfianneoessary
especially during school hours.
c. The additional traffic will also create a. hazard to
children walking to and fromSou.th Knoll ElementarY$chool
a.ndalso A&M Consolidated High School. Itisstated.ul'lder
Section 10..C2..3of theZonin~Ordinance,page 52, "tfl:e use will
not be detrimental to the health, wealth and sa.fety o'fthe surrounding
ne 19hborhood .' "
d. The residence that requests the permit does not have
a fenced yard,nordaes it appear to have the requirE!<ii:parking
for a Day Care Center as stated in the Zoning Ordil1allc:e, page
J8, "minimum off street parking".
I feel that the Conditional Use Permit should be denied for
the above reasons. It is my hope you will vote in op'position
to the permit to allow College Station to have private neighborhoods
which will be in the best interest of the majority of the home
owners in tha.t area.
Sin.ce re.ly,
() tJ7 i'-'a~
August 12, 1982
To Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission.,
lama resident of the Guadalupe;'Langfordareawhere a
ConditionalUseParmithasbeen applied for af2014 Langford
for the opera.tionofa Day Care Center.
I am opposed to this for the following reasons I
a. A Day Care Center will devalue my property. It
is a kno.wn faot that people will not want to live inahouse
n.ear a Day Care Center because it is considered a business.
b.La.n.gfordis a cul-de-sac and was .notdesigned by
city planners for traffic. Having a Day Ca.reCente~areates a
greatd.eal oftraffioforGuadalupe and Langford than neoessary
especially during school hours.
e. The additional traffiewillalso create a hazard to
ohildrenwalking to and from South Knoll Elementary School
and alsoA&MConsolidatedHighSehool. It is stated under
Section 10-02 .3of the Zon.in,q:Ordinance, page 52, "the use will
not be detrimental to the health, wealth a.nd safety of the surrounding
ne ighborhood. .,
d. The residence that requests the permit does not have
a fenced yard, nordQesitappearto have the required p~rking
for a Day Care Center as stated in the Zoning.. Qrdinanc~. jpage
J8, "minimum off street parking".
I feel that the Conditional Use Permit should be denied for
the abovereas~ons. It is my hope you will vote in op'position
to the permit to a.llow CollegeSta.tion to have private neighborhoods
which will be in the best interest of the majority of the home
owners in, that' area..
Sincerely,
~~
20/0 c:;/~
August 12, 1982
To Members/'af th.ePlanningandZ.oningCommission,
lama. resident of the Guadalupe;'Langfordarea where a
Conditional ,User/Permit ha.s been ap.pliedforat 2014, Langford
for theop~ra.ti0n of a Day Care Center.
I'am ,ppposed to this for the following reasons I
f,;
."a . A Day CareCen.ter will devaluemy.property. It
is a known fact that people will not want to live ina house
near a Day Care. Center because it is considered a business.
b. Langford is a cul-de-sac and was not de~~gnedby
l
city planners for traffic. Having a Day CareCenter>ic"ea tea a
l'
great de~lof.traffic for Guadalupe and Langford than .necessary
especially during school hours.
te. Thea.dditional traffic will also create a hazard to
t
children/walking to and :from South.Knoll Elementary-School
and alspA&M Consolidated High School. It is stated under
SectiQnl0-C 2.J of the Zoning Ordinance, page 52, "~he use will
not be detrimental to the health, wealth and safety of the surrounding
neighborhood."
d. The residence that requests the permit does not have
a fenced yard, nor does it appear to have the required parking
for a. Da.y Care Center as stated intheZoningOrdinanc~. page
38, "minimum off street parking".
I feel that the Conditional Use Permit should be denied for
the above reasons. It is my1hope you will vote in opposition
to the permit to allow College Station to have private, .-neighborhoods
, '
which will be in the best interest of the majority of'the home
owners in' that ar.ea..
Sincerely,
'()r) .1\1:). . Jq () LA €.. Lv 'tp ~
~~llt~~--.
~Ot> <1 Lo.V'\~~Cl'f~ ~\
Planning Commission
City'ofCollegedStation
P.o. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77841
Dear Commission Members:
August 2, 1982
This is to .informyouthat I am not, opposed to granting Andrea Mills
the conditional use permit she has applied for, which will allow her
to provide da.y ca.re,in her home at 2014 La.ngfordin College Station.
I'am a'neighborof.hersand I do not feel that her day care activities
have any.. negative impact on our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
August 2, 1982
Planning Commission
City of College Station
P.O. . Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77841
Dear Cormnission Members:
This is to inform you that I am not opposed to granting Andrea Mills
the conditional use permit she has applied for, which will allow her
to provide day ,care in her home at 2014 Langford in.College Station.
I am a neighbor of he.rs and I do not feel that her day care activities
have any negative impact on our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
~/Of
t:73-- '~/}1
August 2, 1982
Planning'CoIlImission
City of College Station
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77841
Dear Commission Members:
This is.to inform you that I am not opposed to granting Andrea Mills
the conditional use permit she has applied for,whichwill allow her
to provide day care in her home>at 2014 Langford in College Station.
I am a.neighbor,ofhers and I do not feel that her day care.activities
have any negative impact on our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
y
August 2, 1982
Planning Commission
City' of. College',.. Station
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, ,Texas 77841
Dear Commission Members:
This is to inform you that I amn()toppose.d to granting Andriea Mills
tbe condi ti'onal<use .permit she has applied for, which will aillow her
to provide day care 'in her home at 2014 Langford'in College Station.
I am a neighbor of hers and Idonot feel that her day carejactivities
have any negative impact on our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
August 2, 1982
Planning,Commission
City.of College Station
P. 0 ..Box' 9960
College Station, Texas 77841
Dear Commission Members:
This is to inform you that lam not opposed to granting Andrea Mills
the conditional use permit she has applied for, which will allow her
to provide day care in her home at 2014 Langford'inCollege Station.
I am a neighbor of hers and I do not feel that her day care activities
have any negative impact on our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
August 2, 1982
Planning Commission
City of College Station
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, -Texas 77841
Dear Commission Members:
This is to inform you that I,amnot opposed to granting Andrea Mills
the conditional use permit sheha.s a.pplied for,whichwillallow her
to provide day care in her home at 2-014 Langford in College Station.
I am a neighbor of hers and I'do not feel that her day, care activities
have any negative impact on our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
k
ZO/7
L~j'fby-J
Planning '. Connnis sian
City of .College .'.Station
P.o. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77841
Dear Cormnission Members:
August 2, 1982
This is to. inform you that lam not. opposed to ,granting Andrea Mills
the conditional use permit she has applied for,. which will allow her
to provide day care in her home at 2014 Langford in College Station.
I am a neighbor of hers and ldo not feel that he.r day care activities
have'any negative impact on our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
1- .d&-.
<:
~..V<~ 0 all L i1-N q ]; (j~ Jj
Be) 77S 7'-+79
HotiE G 93 0 '73,<)
c~~
August 2, 1982
Planning Commission
City of College Station
P.D.Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77841
Dear Con:nnission Members:
This is to inform you that I am notop.posedto granting Andrea Mills
the conditional use permit she .hasapplied for', whi.ch will allow her
to 'provide day care in.her home 'at.20l4Langford in College Station.
lam a neighbor of. hers and I do.not feel that her day care activities
have any n'egatiV'e impact on our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
August 2,1982
Planning.. .Commission
City of College Station
P.o. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77841
Dear Commission Members:
This is to inform you that I,am.notopposed to granting Andrea Mills
the conditional use permit she has. applied for, which will allow her
to provide day care in her home at 2014 Langford in College Station.
lam a. neighbor of hers and I do not feel that her day care activities
have any negative impact on our neighborhood. '
S:incerely,
~-t,\jd
August 2,1982
Planning Commission
City of .Col'lege.Station
P.o. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77841
Dear ConnnissionMembers:
This is to inform you that lam. ,not- opposed to granting Andrea Mills
the conditional use' permit she has applied for, which will allow her
to provide day care in her home at 2014 Langford in College Station.
I am a neighbor of hers 'and Ido not feel that her day care activities
have any negative impact on our neighborhood.
August 2, 1982
Planning Commission
City of College Station
P.o. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77841
Dear Commission Members:
This is to inform you that I am not opposed to granting Andrea Mills
the conditional use permit she has applied for, which will allow her
to provide day care in her home at .2014 Langford. in College Station.
I ama neighbor of hers and I do not feel ,that her da.y care activities
have any negative impact on our 'neighborhood.
Sincerely,
."..
August 16, 1982
To:, Members of the Board
From: Dr. and Mrs. Andrew J. Blanchard
2013 Langford st.
College Station,Texas
Because of employment responsibilities, neither of us is able
to attend the meeting in which Andrea Mills requests a conditional
use permit f.orchild care' at 2014 Langford.
However, we ,feel. that a few ,points should 1:e considered by the
boardpriorto,its.decisiononthis. matter.
We would like to address each of the four objections made by
those who oppose/granting the conditional use permit. But perhaps,
it should be made clear. that we are not only neighbors of the Mills,
but that Andrea keeps our two c;hildren,aged 6i and 2t, a total of
8 hours per month so that I (Darwin) maypersue my career as an R.N.
at a part time job.
Now to the points of objection:
1. NOISE: those persons who objected t,~ . the noise at Andrea"s
house are full time employees , not at home for the most part, while
the children are at Andrea's. P.erhaps for the renefit of late sleepers
the children could "be confined indoors til 10: OOAM. During the
summer months and after school hours, the noise level in the neighbor-
hood is increased, but considering the num"ber of children comprising
this age group in the neighborhood, this is to be expected.
2. TRAFFIl!: the amount of routed traffic recause of A &M Consolidated
High School rears no w6\ight on 2014 Langford which is approximately
400 ft. from the Langford/Guadelupe intersection. Andrea keeps
several Sibling groups. so that the ratio of cars to children is not 1:1.
We walk our children to Andrea"s when she keeps them. I can honestly
say I have never seen more than two cars at a time of parents at
Andrea IS home l:ecause of the parent's varied schedules. Because we
,live directly across the street from the Mills, we are able to monitor
the traffic quite well.
J. DEPRECIATION OF PROPERTY: We have lived in our home for three
years with an escalated value of $10,000 per year as cited to us' by
two realtors of different firms. A vacant ,lot at 201.5~ Langford which
has been on the market for the past two years was purchased last
week.
,.
,
4 . ZONE AND DEED VIOLATIONS : ,Thereis anAmwaydistri but or in the
Langford Cul-de-sac, an Avon representative. at 1814 Langford, a
Mary Kay Cosmetics distributor :~nl,i:fuancelotand Home Care Services at
1020 Guadelupe in addition ,to several private businesses and consulting
firms operating out of private homes.
My point is that the service provided by Mrs. Mills is vital to
those who require child \9are 'for any reason. When a parent and
child are satisfied with this kind of care ,. it warrants investigation
by those in authority to see why the service is so vital.
Your sincere consideration in this matter will be apprediated.
Your decision will affect many.
Darwin B. "Blanchard
2010. Langford
College.Station, TX 77840
August 2, 1981
CityPlanner'sOffice
Post Office Box, 9960
1101 Texas Avenue
CollegeStation,TX 77840
Attentiori: James Call~way, Assistant Director of Planning
Dear Sir:
On Thursday, August 5, 1982 at 7:00PM, the Planning and Zoning Commission
will consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit on a piece of
land located at 2014 Langford. The purpose of the permit would be to allow
the., existence .of adaycare center fora maxi mum of 6 to9 chi ldreni n the
home.
On this date I shall be unable to attend the hearing because of a- conference
I shall be attending in Temple concerning the dietetic internship of Texas
A&M University ofwhi'ch Iamthedir.ector. I am therefore advising you of
my reserva.tibns concerning this permit by thi sl etter.
The neighborhood in which this proposeddaycarecenterwould be was designated
for residential use only according to the deed restrictions agreed upon when
each home' was purchased. When we purchased our home which is located 2
houses from the one in question, we assumed that we could use it for residential
purposes only because of the legal documents whicn we signed agreeing to these
deed restrictions. I presume Mr. and Mrs. ,Mi 11 s agreed to similar restrictions
when they purchased their home.
My greatest reservati on however is not the above. ," It is rather the f'actthat
this home at 2014 Langford has been used for adaycarecenterfor at least
a year according to Mrs. Mills without a permit. Therefore, I am concerned
that the limitsof6 to 9 children allowed by the permit may not be remembered
andadheredto>bythemanager of the center. The neighborhood has become
divided into two opposing sides over this issue, and I can foresee further
difficul~iesinherentto the expanding.daycarecenterand the 'problems which
accompany such a business in a residential area such as ours.
It is my hope that. the applicants do not take the concerns of many of their
neighbors as a personal affrontry butratherunde}^.stand that we are concerned
with preservingcthegoalofthe neighborhood as a place to raise our children
away from a business district.
Sincerely,
~
y'~...................i
KarenS.Kubena
July 30 ,1'982
To Whom It May Concern~
My family and Iwill be out of town August 5, 1982. This will
prev entmy at te ndin g" themeeti ng oft h~e . Plan nin 9 and Zon ing
Commission at which the Gonditional Use Permit application
of Andrea Mills requesting permission the operate a
daycare center ather home at 2014 Langford will be con-
sidered.
lam generally op"posed the use, of prop~'erty in the."area
in which I 1 ive .forcomm'erci alpurposes. However, I am
not 'op pas edtoth eop'e r ati on 0 fadayc are ce nter a t2014
Langford as I do not see this as an inconvenience nor
as a threat to theprop;:e'rty val ue of surrounclinghomes..
Please consider this letter as a reflection of my
o pi n i on 0 nth ism a t t era s, I am un a b.l e to a t ten d t he me e tin 9
personally.
Re~ P, e ~ t" f, . U lly~ / iL2,.' .
.~~~P.
. S h ann a ' B. Yates
2100 " Lang ford
College Station, TX 77840
W IT'NESSED
DATE:
BY: ~
7/3&./'lt2-.
/'
SIGNED:
DA T E :.. . ...~ .......3~.I. (~ <? '-
Wi tnes sed th i s 3o~ day of CtJ...vr _,.., .,
~ ~~ -r-o-
Rhonda.Wilson
Notary Public, State of Texas
A.D. 1982.
My commission expires the 20th day ofAflril~ 1986
Planning Department' has received the following form letter which
been signed by the list of neighbors below, indicating they are
not opposed to the Daycare Center at 2014 Langford. Copies of these
signed letters will be part of the permanent file.
tlThis isto inform you that r am not opposed to granting Andrea
tlills the conditi'onalu~e permit she has applied for, which will'
allow her to provide day care in her home at 2011. Langford in
College Station. I am a neighbor o.fhers and Ido not feel that
her day care activities have any negative impa.ctonour neighbor-
hood . II
Darwin~.Blanchard & Andrew J. Blanchard:
D.E. Carrier: 2103 Langford
F. de Corturbia:2011 Langford
(not legltfle}'deAsa'rta': 2017 Langford
Nora Lee Hatch: 2102 Langford
Joan Quarles: 2012 Langford
piane Welch: 2111 Langford
Gloria Lefn~~: 2109 Langford
Peggy Ragsdale: 2104 Langford
The form letters received total ten (lO) in number, plus the two (2)
individual letters received-which are attac.hedandindicate no oppo~ition
-to the Daycare Center, making a total of twelve (12)respon~esgene.rally
~ in favor of granti ngthe condit iona 1 use pe,rmi t .for the Daycare center
we have received from nefghbors to the proposed project.
are the tVJO (2) l'ett~rs whic'hare attached
this Daycare Center being established.
/;2-7/3
Jl
TX 778ltO
August 15, 1982
To I~!embers of ,tbePlanning
City of College Stat~on,
i4ilt e FIe ming
l~Yesley .Hall
1/1urlBailey
Jim 13ehling
Gerald ",,11iller
Roy Kelly
David, Hill
r~W()l.lldlike youtQplease consider the following in regard to an
application for a conditional use permit for adaycare center at
2014 Langford.
are 19 year residents of College Station. For 17t of these
years \'JelivedonLeacrest Drive.' In lifarcnof1981 ,,-va moved to
1201 Guada,lupe. ,Theprimaryreasonfor ourmoving\vas the
deterioration of our former neighborhood i.n relationtodensit,y
of people, ,traffieand noise... Several bousesonLeacrest VJere
being rented, yritha couple of them ,tG students. This crea ted
arl atmospherecthat\vas differentfrom?ingle ,family bomes, on
the street. . ',7e decided a move to. Guadalupe Drive would assure
us of,9singlefamilynei.ghborhoodforalong, time to, com9,
since our deed contained restrictions that would limit uses of
the lots to residential pur,poses only. The deed "also sta tes
that nO activity s.ball be permitted that vlould be an annoyance
or nuisance to. theneighborbood.
'ti3want you to realize tbata daycare. center next.door to us, . across
the street ,fromus,behind us or \vitbinhearingrange, ,or sigl1t
rarnge ofus,<~1ouldd,efinitely bean anno.y"ance to us. ifhe traffic
such. .acenter would create in and out of one residence plttst
inevitablenoiseletlel tha t c11ildren crea viould beasi tUB t'1-C)TI
'VI evrould',' 'fin d tlnac.c e p tab 1 e..
Tbeproposeddaycare r at 2014
hearing rangeorsigb't range of our re
the application <for.8 daycare ce'nterat
be, ulucbeasiertogrant a similar ,request
a precedent had already been established.
not v!Jitbin
. t if yOu grant
Langford, "it vlould .
1203 Gtladalupe sinCr.9
Tbeissuebeforeyou>is the ,quality of a neighborhood. Tbeissue
is 'not\vhether()rnot}lrs.r4illsis. qualified to care forchild:ren
or vlbetberparen.ts<would be inconvenienced if she could not care
for tbeirchildren. Hrs. Hills hpls acboice... She can . establish
a ,daycare .centerinanother ,part or " COllege Station. Vleresiden ts
of Camelotl18Ve nocho5_ce except to move to another neigbborho
.wheretherearedaycare centers. Bu t '\vbatassurances'\~10uld. e
have thatPl~a.nning ,.~ Commission vrouldn'"t' gral1t isiJni<':;'~"]r
re the