Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesZBA MINUTES May 2, 2000 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a side street setback variance at 2100 Maplewood, lot 27, block 18, Emerald Forest Phase 10. Applicant is John J. Albernaz Inc. Mr. Bond told Chairman Alexander that he needed to step down from hearing this case due to a conflict of interest. Chairman Alexander told the applicant that positive action from this Board would require the remaining members to all vote in favor of the variance. Chairman Alexander asked the applicant if he wanted to reschedule this when a full Board was voting. Mr. Albemaz stated that he would proceed with the hearing. Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Anderson told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to legitimize an encroachment into the side street setback. The subject property is located on the corner of Maplewood Court, a cul-de-sac, and Appomattox Drive. Maplewood Court is considered to constitute the front of the home, while the West Side of the home has frontage along the side street Appomattox Drive. This case involves a recently constructed home that, at the time of sale, was found to encroach into the required side street setback along Appomattox Drive. A survey of the subject property shows an 18.21 foot section of the home that is only 13.35 feet (instead of the required 15 feet) from the property line along Appomattox Drive, thus the applicant is requesting a variance of 1.65 feet to the side street setback requirements. The applicant offers a special condition of a subtle curvature in Appomattox Drive that resulted in a foundation placement miscalculation that led to the subsequent encroachment. The applicant adds that the site plan and construction was approved by the College Station Building Department, however these inspections were based on erroneous site data that did not take into account the curvature of the road. The applicant has stated a hardship of the only remedy to the encroachment being the removal and replacement of the foundation and exterior walls. He argues that such removal and replacement would cause the structural integrity of the entire structure to be unsafe. The City is not currently under the policy of enforcing setbacks when encroachments are found, however failure to remedy the encroachment through reconstruction or variance could make future sales of the home difficult. The only alternative to the variance which would clear up future surveys that has been found by the applicant and staff is to remove the area that is encroaching into the side street setback. Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. John Albemaz, the applicant stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Albemaz told the Board that he believes the Board has all the information in their packets and he is there if there were any questions. Mr. Searcy asked Mr. Albemaz if the home was constructed according to the plans and in the location approved by the city. Mr. Albemaz told the Board that there was an error in the site plan. The plan showed a 94 -foot frontage and it is actually 91 feet because of the curve in the road. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the request, Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing. Mr. Murphy made a motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: a slight curvature in the road that was left out of the site plan resulted in the encroachment; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the removal and replacement of the foundation and exterior walls. Such action would result in an unsafe structure; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Searcy seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (4-0).