Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout81 Regular Meeting 9.19.78AGENDA ZONING BOARD OF ADJ1JS1MENT September 19, 1978 7:30 p. m. 1. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of Au gu st 29, 1978. 2. Consideration of a request for variance from Lorenzo Pres ton at 103 Holleman Drive. J. Other Business 4. Adjourn ( ( ( MEMBERS PRESENT : STAFF PRE SENT : VISITORS PRE SENT : MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 29 , 1978 John Hughey , Henry Hawley , Wes Harper , Ann Jones, Dorothy DuBois , Council Liai son Larry Ringer (not voting) Building Official Bill Koeh l er , City Attorney Neeley Lei..ns Floyd Maksche , Luther G. Jones, Robert Alexander , Helen Bo~man , Bob Boyce , Henry Miller , Tyler Moore , Lloyd Smith , Larry D. Hill , R. Hambrick John Hughey was selected chairman by acclimation . Agenda Item No . 1 --Approval of the minutes of the meeting of June 20 , 1978 : The mi nut es were declared approved as wr itten. Agenda Item No . 2 --Consideration of a r eques t for variance from Floyd Maksche at 315 University Drive : Koehler said that the application had been mail ed in time , but delayed at the Post Office . He explained that the request was to expand a buil ding which was a non-conforming use i..nth re spect to parking regulations and front setback . Maksche pointed out that the expan sion would be to a rear area not u seable for parking , would observe rear setback , and would be even with one adjacent building . Hughey moved that the variance be granted because of th e unique circumstance of simil ar situati ons throughout the neighborhood and because the proposed c onstruction would effect no change in the neighborhood . The motion was seconded by Hawley and unanimous l y approved . Agenda Item No . 3 --Con sideration of a request f or variance f rom Henry Lee Johnson at 415 Thompson Street : Koehler discussed the application and concurred in the statements made in it . He said t hat the only pub lic interest involved would be the open space required i n front yards . Hu ghey moved that the variance be granted because of the other simil ar buildings along the s tr eet and because no subst antial public interest would be lo s t. The motion was seconded by Hawley and unanimously approved . Agenda Item No . 4 --Consideration of a request for variance from Arnesta Wiggins at 1102 Carolina Street: Koehler di scussed the application and agreed with the s t atements made in it . He said the case was parallel to the previous item and in a nearly neighborhood . ··! Minutes/Page 2 Hughey moved that the variance be granted because of the other similar buildings in the neighborhood and because no substantial public interest would be lost . The motion was seconded by Jones and unanimously approved . Agenda Item No . 5 --Consideration of a request for variance from Larry D. Hill at 1806 Sabine Court : Koehler presented the application and pointed out that this was an oddly shaped lot on a cul-de -sac . He said that most structures in the neigh- borhood c onformed , but that a front setback variance had been granted for an adjoining lot . Hill discussed dimensions of his proposed structure , the uses of the land adjacent to his property , the proposed distance to the street , and constraints of easements which 1o~uld not allow him to purchase and utilize additional land. Hughey moved that the v ariance be granted because of the location of the cul-de-sac and the unusual configuration of the lot. The motion 1o~s seconded by DuBois . Hughey and Harper expressed reservations about decrea sing open space where setbacks had been observed , and expressed an interest of other nearby owners in maintaining such space . They questioned optimum use of available space and the relative detriment of a two car carport as opposed to the three car structure proposed . DuBois and Jones questioned the amount of encroachment which could not be precisely stated from the information given . Hughey moved that the request be tabled until such time as the applicant could fin d the distance by which his structure -would encroach upon the front setback line . The motion was seconded by Hawley and unanimously approved . ·Agenda Item No . 6 --Consideration of an appeal from Dr . Alexander on 107 and 201 Dominik Drive : Koehler presented all of the correspondence in the case and said that upon investigation of a complaint from the appelant he had : 1. deferred a decision on the adequacy of the screening fence . 2. determined that there 1-~s no violation of environmental regulations with respect to noise and odors within the meaning of the ordinance for the reasons stated in his memorandum of August 9, 1978 . J . commenced action on the complaint about lighting . He said that the appellant held that the screen fence was inadequate and therefore in violation, and that conditions of odors were in fact a violation as alleged in the original complaint . Dr . Alexander said that his principal concern was smoke and odo r. He said that he r elied upon the ordinance description of a Single Family Residential District 11protected from incompatible uses 11 • He said that 11 ambi ent11 should be con strued according to the dictionary definition, and that environmental ( ( l !. l Minutes/Page J regulations are more spec i f i c than di s t ric t regulations and should be interpr eted strictly i n a case where the r egulations conflict. ·He said that adjacent land use distr icts should be a valid c ons i deration in inter- pretation of district regulations . He di sagreed wi th the assumption that effec t on neighboring properties h ad been con s idered in the original r ezoning action in 1967 and cited the r ecord of publication of notice and minutes of the hearings . Helen Bo~mian said that she h ad b ought property r e lying on zoning and for that rea son had not checked on the circumstances of adjoining propertie s . She said that the Polic e Department would take no action on odors and that the odors precluded her u se of the b ack yard and were a problem in h er house at night. Lloyd Smith of T.AMU food services said that he wa s familiar with 11 Simplex11 c entrifugal grease extractors . He said that a Bureau of Standards study showed that one brand of extractors c omb i ned with an electro s tatic precipi- tator achieved 95 p ercent solids r em oval. He said that such systems are in use in eastern and midwestern states and estimated precipitator energy u sage at $28 0 per year for 1 0 feet of vent ilator hood . He said that one manu - facturer claims that charcoal f ilters added to the above compon ents achieve 100 perc ent solids and odors removed . He estimated the cost of the total system at $14 ,80 0 plus plumbing and ad j ustments . Henry Miller r ec i ted the chang es in his operation s and equipment that he h ad made to a ccom odate the desires of his neighbo rs . He pointed out that the Municipal Court had found him not guilty of a noi se nuisance complaint and had found that the noise level was not unr easonable . He asserted that his v enting and extraction systems we r e quite adequate by community standards , and that Hea lth Dep artment in s pections confirm thi s . He felt that further exp enditur es for equipment that had been discussed would not be reasonable and that t he efficiency f igure s cited for the systems we r e over-optimistic . He said that burn-cleaning of the broiler grill is done nightly at about 11 p . m. and do es produce smoke f or about ten minutes . In respon se to a question from Harper , Miller offered the opinion that smoke and odor s were not normal to a residential neighborhood , but was no more than from other commercial operations . He acknowledged that there was a problem, but that the problem stemm ed from the zoning of the land upon which he too had rel ied in locating his business . He noted that he had heard no complaints from other residents who were more directly in line of prevailing winds. Helen Bowman said that odors from gar bage at Pepe Taco we re a problem a l s o. R. Hambrick , a supervisor at Pepe 's said t hat Health Unit sanitarians had found no probl em with the dumpsters and that drainage f~om th e City's packer trucks could be the cause of any odors . Hughey r emarke d that the question was wh ether or not the Building Official's interpretations up on which he had based his f indings , we re correct . He said ,/ ( ( I I I I I \ Minutes/Page 4 that all parties agreed as to the conditions, but the businesses are legitimate operations, the error being in how the land is zoned . He pointed out that the time to have acted was when the property was re-zoned . Mrs . Bowman said that the ordinance should be enforced according to its literal meaning . Hawley said that no food operation in the City conforms to the literal meaning . Koehler mentioned the r equirement for uniformity in application of district regulation s and reiterated that literal meaning ha s been interpreted to reflect what is reasonable for permitted uses. Tyler Moore pointed out that if his client were required to eliminate all odors, he should expect that all of his c ompetitors would be required to do the same . Jones and DuBois stated that they would not be prepared to decide ~dthout exam- ining the conditions on the site . Hughey said that smoke and odors were mentioned separately in the ordinance, and the existence of smoke was not qualified in the ordinance . Hughey moved that the appeal be upheld with regard to smoke , it being held that any smoke emission is a violation of the ordinance . The motion was seconded by Harper and failed for lack of required affirmative notes as follo ws : AYE: Hughey , Harper NAY: Hawley with Jon es and DuBois abstaining Hughey moved that the appeal be upheld with regard to odors , it being held that odors as described are noxious and therefore a violation of the ordinance~ The motion was seconded by Harper and failed by the following note : AYE: None NAY: Hughey, Harper,_ Hawley with Jones and DuBois abstaining Koehler explained the problem of the two to three inch gap at the bottom of the screen fence . Miller said that he would fill the gap . Alexander agreed that this would solve the problem with the fence. Alexander stated that he had no further complaint about the noise as it exists now. The Board directed that the Building Official re-examine the lighting of the rear of Danver 's and inform the owner of his findings . Miller could then appeal any disagreement that he might have with the findings . Agenda Item No . 7 --Other Business : There was no other business. Agenda Item No . 8 --Adjourn : There being no other business , the meeting was declared adjourned . I _I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POST OFFICE BOX 9960 11 01 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION , TEXAS 77840 September 1 5 , 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Adju stmen t FROM: Building Official SUBJECT: Meeting of Septemb er 19 , 1978 1. Con s ideration of a r equest for variance f rom Lorenzo Preston: The applicant seeks a permit and a variance to add to a non- c onforming structur e at 103 Holleman Drive . 2. No information was brought forth concerning the variance case from last month on Larry D. Hill . .. " APPLIC PJIT_~dJJ~_c-U "-~-PHO ~ _/y CJ ~ -52'-+---' lillI;It°I G ADDRESS_/_ 0 1 fl 1.:::J=:V::::i::::ht====:C.~5===========================1 L~m-1 -j:-. -BLO_c_K ;; sUBnrv C !t QW-/~===:-~----------i STREET ADDRE SS. ___ ___L/--1....:QJ-w_• _Jj~I ol~le'.l...:..· (({2,J,,,,L,!_J..,Q.A,.,;,U,_L~) ----------t PLUHBER ONEH c o :;s ::.cccTION . TYPE: 0 DE!..(OLI .:..i. O:iJ 0HOVE Oli ELECTRIC I AH ORESIDENCE US E : ODUPLEX .. 0 ,J..P ARTI1E NWd-__ · !Dt·:'ELLDIG 'prrr '.i's: ___ -_-'·_--TOTAL-fl.REA . -HE ATED AREA _ _.._,,,"-+----i FOUNDATION irlfa ~-:·-_-::·: __ ·: PA.qTITI-CI:rs_· _· .. ,,.:::>..b"-A.b....l...' 1d,,.,<t-:fiw>..:..;··-.L..i...~-.::;.J.-. _,_·C,.....··:, . .J..:;L~-· _. -__ EiTiR;~R -Jhjij . Ju · WI HDOHS ___ _,..cJ..,,·:..i,,~,..,J-"-).,_ffYl ..... • ~'-· ,_· ·. __ · _· __ · .. _: ·._ ROOF ______ NO. OF-ROm'1.S ____ . ( excl .. ll tchen & bath) ATHS NO. OF BLDGS __ _ CE11TRAL HEAT/ AIR: TONS GAS CONDITIONS OF ISSUAHCE: DCARPORT 0 SINGLE 0ATTACHED OGPJUGE ODOUBLE QDETACHED AIR FEE· . r/L @;r.ef):_._------- . @3.00_·_· ---i __-@2.50 ___ --I __ @2.00_-_. __ --< __ @l.25 ___ --1 , __ @ • 75__,.....,,....--1 TOT AL $--1-__.,_...:."-=-~"---.J RECIEPT NO --------~-------~--------~~---- .. ... . . _BUILDING OITICIAL ·.. · .... -. · . · .: .... _ · DATE ISSUED . . . -: . . I--, the undersigned, hereby c ertify that the information stated herein and in the attached plans is true and correct a'Yld that the con.struction proposed complies with the Zoning Ordinance, the BuildL11.g Code and conditions of approval of the plat of the · la.11.d. I also certify that I am. familiar irlth the regulations above mentioned and with the conditions of issuance of this permit and I understal'J.d that I am personally liable to the penalties provided by law for each and every day's violation of any of the above reeulations in addition to the costs of removing or correcting all such violations whether or not they are shown on this permit or the attached plans. SIGNATURE OF APFLICAHT: _ __....a;......z_~_IJ_·~· __ 12-ie_· __ A-_if.J...--___ --'DATE ______ _ .,, .. J r Fage 2 of 2 File No. _______ _ RE QUEST FO R VARI ANCE Present z oning of l and in qu estioYl '.· R -J Section of ordinanc e from whi ch var iance is sought · .s=-D 1./ {;-/J BL c~ 11 /) '') The following s pecific variati on from t h e ordinance is reque s t ed: ·70 _ ____;(};2;.)~~- /llJS ONL Y SFT ,-4-- This variance is neces s ary due to the following unique and special conditions . of the land not found in like districts: The following alternatives to the reque s ted variance a.re possible: _______ ~ , o E This variance ·will not be con trary to the public interest by virtue of the following The facts state d by me in this applicatio~ a.re true and correct. x_[iL-~~~ Applicant 7 Dat . fu.~E'H AND COMMEN T: Buildi."l.g Off icial:----------------'---~-- . Lr) -- ' o"C'...\',o~ ~ ' _l,--1.0J A~) l,("C)O Q /'1;, JI c:::, ~ (() ; ) ~ ; ~ ~' I . ~ i- ':J '1 l.. t El 11~~ r1 htX«'JI I r~>o(.)fV3J \:) L-<~1.1. ~(f{{ (\1 d.)/ c-, /, ~ .-< ~fl .J, ':< t .1> IX ;/ "\ I -'\. ~ 175'-3 I (1) >'>I a f/ b u .1 I'S l X ._=! ,, ,, D t1 • I -' ... -., ~ , 1 - AGENDA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 19, 1978 7:30 p . m. 1 . Approval of the minutes of the meeting of August 29, 1978 . 2 . Consideration of a request for variance from Lorenzo Preston at 103 Holleman Drive . 3 . Other Business 4. Adjourn (__ v -. -. '-. ( ( ( MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESE NT: VISITORS PRESENT : MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 29 , 1978 John Hughey , Henry Hawley , Wes Harper, Ann Jones , Dorothy DuBois , Council Liaison Larry Ringer (not voting) Building Official Bill Koehler , City Attorney Neeley Lewis Floyd Maksche , Luther G. Jones , Robert Alexander , Helen Bo~man , Bob Boyce , Henry Miller , Ty l e r Moore , Lloyd Smith , Larry D. Hill , R. Ha.~brick John Hughey was selected chairman by acclimation. Agenda Item No . 1 --Approval of the minutes of the meeting of June 20 , 1978 : The minutes were dec l ared approved as •~itten . Agenda Item No . 2 --Consideration of a request for variance from Floyd Maksche at 315 University Drive : Koehler said that the application had been mailed in time , but delayed at t he Post Office . He explained that the r equest was to expand a buil ding which •~s a non-conforming use with respect to parking regulations and front setback . Maksche pointed out that the expansion would be to a rear area not useable for parking , would observe rear setback , and would be even with one adjacent building . Hughey moved that the variance be granted because of the unique circumstance of simil ar situations throughout the neighborhood and because the propo sed c onstruction would effect no change in the neighborhood . The motion vias seconded by Hawley and unanimous l y approved. Agenda Item No . 3 --Consideration of a request for variance from Henry Lee Johnson at 41 5 Thompson Street: Ko ehler discussed the application and concurred in the statements made in it. He said that the only publi c interest inv olved would be the open space required in front yards . Hughey moved that the variance be granted because of the other similar buildings along the street and because n o substantial public interest would be lost . The motion was seconded by Hawley and unanimous l y approved . Agenda Item No . 4 --Consideration of a request for variance from Arnesta Wiggins at 1102 Carolina Street: Koehler discussed the application and agreed with the statements made in it . He said the case was parallel to the previous item and in a nearly neighborhood . 'f ... ( ( ' Minutes/Pag e 2 Hughey moved that the varianc e be granted because of the other similar buildings in the neighborhood and becau s e no substan tial public interest would be lost. The motion wa s s econded by Jones and unanimously a pproved . Ag enda Item No . 5 --Consideration of a request for variance from Larry D. Hill at 1806 Sabine Court: Koehler presented the application and pointed out that this was an oddly shaped lot on a cul-de-sac . I He said that most structures in the neigh- borhood conformed , but that a front setback variance had been granted for an adjoining lot . Hill discussed dimensions of his proposed structure, the uses of the land adjacent to his property , the proposed distance to the street , and constraints of ea s ements which would not allow him to purchase "' and utilize additional land . Hughey moved that the variance be granted because of the location of the cul-de-sac and the unusual configuration of the lot. The motion was seconded by DuBois . Hughey and Harper expressed reservations about decreasing open space where setbacks had been observed , and expressed an interest of other nearby owners in maintaining such space . They questioned optimum use of available space and the relative detriment of a two car carport as opposed to the three car structure proposed. DuBois and Jones questioned the amount of encroachment which could not be preci s ely stated from the information given . Hu gh ey mov e d that the request b e tabled until such time as the applicant could find the distance by whic h hi s structure \.Duld encroach upon the front setback line . The motion wa s s econded by Hawley and unanimously approved. Agenda Item No . 6 --Consideration of an app e a l from Dr . Alexande r on 107 and 201 Dominik Drive : Koehler presented all of the correspondence in the case and said that upon investi gation of a complaint from the appelant he had : 1. deferred a decision on the adequacy of the screening fence . 2 . determined that there was no viol ation of environmental regulations with respec t to noise and odors wi thin the meaning of the o rdinance for the reasons stated in his memorandum of August 9 , 1978 . J . commenced action on the complaint about lighting . He said that the appellant held that the screen fence was inadequate and therefore in violation , and that conditions of odors ~rere in fact a violation as alleged in the original complaint . Dr . Alexander said that his principal concern was smoke and odor ._ He said t hat he relied upon the ordinance description of a Single Family Residential District "protected from incompatible uses". He said that "ambientn should be con3trued according to the dictionary definition , and that environmental / ( ( ( I t. 1 • / I .J Minute s/Page J regulation s are more spe cific t han district regulations and should be interprete d strictly in a ca se ,me re the regulations conflict. ·He said that adjacent land u s e districts should be a valid consideration in inter- pretation of district regulations. He di s agreed with the assumption that effect on neighboring propertie s had been considered in the original rezoning action in 1967 and cited the record of publication of notice and minutes of the hearings . Helen Bo-wrnan said that she had bought property relying on zoning and for that reason had not checke d on the circumstances of adjoining properties . She said that the Police Department would take no action on odors and that the odors precluded her use of the back yard and were a problem in her house at night. Lloyd Smith of TAMU food services said that he was familiar with 11 Simplex11 centrifugal grease extractors. He said that a Bureau of Standards study showed that one brand of extractors combined with an electrostatic precipi- tator achieved 95 percent solids removal . He said that such systems are in use in eastern and midwestern states and estimated precipitator energy usage at $280 per year for 10 feet of ventilator hood . He said that one manu- facturer claims that charcoal filters added to the above components achieve 100 percent solids and odors removed . He estimated the cost of the total system at $14 ,800 plus plumbing and adjustments . Henry Miller recited the change s in his operations and equipment that he had made to accomodate the desires of his neighbors . He pointed out that the Municipal Court had found him not guilty of a noise nuisance complaint and had found that the noise level was not unreasonable . He asserted that his venting and extraction systems vIBre quite adequate by community standards, and that Health Department inspections confirm this . He felt that further expenditures for equipment that had been discussed would not be reasonable and that the efficiency figures cited for the systems were over-optimistic . He said that burn-cleaning of the broiler grill is done nightly at about 11 p. m. and does produce smoke for about ten minutes . In response to a question from Harper , Miller offered the opinion that smoke and odors were not normal to a residential nei ghborhood , but was no more than from other commercial operations . He acknowledged that there was a problem, but that the problem stemmed from the zoning of the land upon which he too had relied in locating his business . He noted that he had heard no complaints from other residents ,mo were more directly in line of prevailing winds . Helen Bo-wmansaid that odors from garbage at Pepe Taco were a problem also. R. Hambrick , a supervisor at Pep e 's said that Health Unit sanitarians had found no problem with the dumpsters and that drainage from the City's packer trucks could be the cause of any odors . Hughey remarked that the question was whether or not the Building Official's interpretations upon ,mich he h a d based his findings , were correct. He said ( C I ! I \ Minutes/Page 4 that all parties a gr eed as to the condition s , but the bus inesses are legitimate op erations , the error being in how the l and is zon ed . He p ointed out that the time to have acted was ,m en the prop erty was r e-zoned. Mr s . Bo\.IIIlan s aid that the ord i nance should be enforced according to its literal mean ing . Hawley said that n o food operation in the City conforms to the literal meaning. Koehler me n t ioned the requir ement for uniformity in application of district re gulations and r eiterated that literal meaning has been interpreted to reflect what is reasonable for permitted uses. Tyler Moor e pointed out that if his client were required to eliminate all odors, he should expect that all of h is competit ors would be required to do the same . Jones and DuBois s t a ted that they wo uld not be prepared to decide vnthout exam- ining t he conditions on the site. Hu ghey said that smoke and odors were mentioned separately in the ordinance, and t he existenc e of smoke was no t qualified in the ordinance. Hugh ey moved that the app eal be upheld with regard to smoke , it being held that any smoke emission is a violation of the ordinance . The motion was seconded by Harper and failed for lack of required affirmative notes as follows: AYE: Hugh ey, Harper NAY: Hawley with Jone s and DuB oi s abstaining Hughey moved that the appeal be upheld with re gard to odors, it being held that odor s as described are noxious and therefore a violation of the ordinance . Th e motion was seconded by Harper and failed by the following note: AYE: None NAY : Hu ghey, Harper, Hawley with Jone s and DuBoi s ab stainin.g Koehler explained the problem of the two to three inch gap at the bottom of the screen fence. Miller said that he would fill the gap . Alexander agreed that this would solve the problem 1-n th the fence. Alexander stated that he had no further complaint about the noi s e as it exists now. The Board directed that the Building Of f icial r e-examine the lighting o f the rear of Dan ver's and inform the oi..m.er of hi s findings. Miller could then appeal any disagr eement that he mi gh t have with the findings. Ag enda I tem No . 7 --Other Bus iness : There was no other bus iness . Agenda Item No . 8 --Ad journ: There being no other business , the meeting was declared adjourned . l _I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POST OFFICE B OX 9960 11 01 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 September 15, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: Zoning Board of Adjustment FROM : Building Official SUBJECT: Meeting of September 19, 1978 1 . Consideration of a request for variance from Lorenzo Preston: The applicant seeks a permit and a variance to add to a non- conforming structure at 103 Holleman Drive. 2. No information was brought forth c oncerning the variance case from last month on Larry D. Hill . : \ PLUMBER ONEH co:;s:::rt. 'cTION . 'riPE: 0 Dffi~OLI'ZI:J i.-i . 0HOVE Oli FOUNDATION rtfa [0.: . :-=' .-.. :: P AR'.LITIC I-.rs .•. -"ab J.diutC-L · - E~TE_Fl;~R JfUf!-')<j WI HDOWS (Jl_{Atirp '·_ .. ROOF ___ ._._ .. ·'_.:·,_."-· ·_NO. OF ROmtiS ____ · ( e~L kitchen & bath)_ . ATHS ___ NO~ OF BLDGS __ _ 'QCARPORT 0SINGLE '0ATTACHED FEEv.. -. . . "oo 1£'@5-;ef):_-_~ --· @3. oo_·_· -----1 __ . @2.50 ___ --i __ ._@2.00_. ___ _ • ___ @l.25 ___ ---1 , ___ @ • 7 5___,~-.,---1 TOTAL $--1'---'~·~c9.-~o-·~ OGPJlAGE []DOUBLE []DETACHED AIR REC IEPT NO CENTRAL HEAT/AIR: TONS GAS CO HD ITIONS OF ISSUAHCE : ~---------------------------------------~~--~~- ". . ... -- _BUILDING OFFICIAL .. -·_ -. ~ .· DATE ISSUED I--, the undersigned, hereby c ertify that the information stated herein and in the atta che d plans is true and correct and that the construction proposed complies with the Zoning Ordina~ce, the Building Code and conditions of approval of the plat of the land. I also certif y that I ar;i familiar with the regulations above mentio!'led and with the condition s of issuance of this perm.it and I understand that I am personally liable to the penalties provided by l a~ for each and every day's violation of any of the above regulations in addition to the co s ts of removi_ng or correcting all such violations whether or not they are shown on this permit or the attached plans. SIGNATURE OF APFLICANT: _ _..,_.(J.._Z_i_'~-·~·--~---cT2-----· ___ DATE. ______ _ :-.··. /' I Fage 2 of 2 File No. _______ _ REQUEST FOR VARIANCE ., Present zoning of land in question \· R -/ Section of ordinance from which varianc e is sought .· .. s=-D Lj {/i:JBL r 11/J-'') The follow:ing specific variation from the ordinance is requested: '/?) _Ll;2/)~-- This variance is necessary due to the .following unique and special conditions . of the land not .found in like districts: GYt.$7/tt/(; £Tt?vcTUl2€" The following alternatives to the requested variance are possible: _______ _ o IF This variance mll not be contrary to the public interest by virtue of the .f ollow:ing SF/if/}(,/( The facts stated by me in this application are true and correct. K~~~ Applicant 7 Dat REVIEW AND COMMENT: Buildi..YJ.g Official: _____________________ _ l -I c...) '- I -' ~ I ( ,. I' /:.-)(I SI l'n <J If o 1<. .s ~ • p I ' <:) ~SL/-7' '\. - I ' {; J}Jl~ TLan i. e K 1 sT, "1 ., ~ r-'a. 7 fit! f{e; "\/ Q £/\/(')o..S~J .c I,,,> >I I L./ I rµ,7'~ e i1J..J ~. r' -1 -'l) 7 .. .. ( - µ ~ , ~ ~ '""" 0 f'e>) (S-Y f'Di---1 flew ~ ~ I ;2"'-f~O --{ ~ .. ..... .. . • TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Zoning Board of Adjustment will consider a request for variance from Mr . Lorenzo Preston at their called meeting in the Council Room of the College Station City Hall at 7 ;30 p . m. on Tuesday, September 19, 1978 , the nature of the case being as follows: The applicant requests a variance to Section 5-D.4 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to add to his residence at 103 Holleman Drive . Further information is avail able at the office of ~he Building Official of the City of College Station , 846-8886 . William F . Koehler Building Official CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POST OFFICE BOX 9960 11 01 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 September 15, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: Zon ing Board of Adjustment FROM : Building Official SUBJECT : Meeting of September 19 , 1978 1 . Consideration of a request for variance from Lorenzo Preston : The applicant seeks a permit and a variance to add to a non - conforming structure at 103 Ho lleman Drive . 2 . No information was brought forth concerning th e variance case from last month on Larry D. Hill . l _I TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION POST OFFICE BOX 9960 11 01 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 The Zoning Board of Adjustment will consider a request for variance from Mr. Lorenzo Preston at their called meeting in the Council Room of the College Station City Hall at 7:30 p. m. on Tuesday, September 19, 1978, the nature of the case being as follows: The applicant requests a variance to Section 5-D.4 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to add to his residence at 103 Holleman Drive . Further information is available at the office of the Building Official of the City of College Station, 846-8886 . William F. Koehler Building Official