Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/1989 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments~~ MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment September 19, 1989 7:00 P.M. • MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ruesink, Members Cronan, Henry & Baker MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Gilmore & Alternate Member Webb; Also Council Liaison Birdwell STAFF PRESENT: Building Official Coy Perry, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk A(iBNDA ITBM N0. 1:. Call to order - explanation of functions and liaitations of the Board. Chairman Ruesink called the meeting to order. AaBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Approval of ainutes - aeeting of Septeuber 5, 1989. Mr. Henry made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mrs. Baker seconded the motion which carried unanimously (4-0). A(3BNDA ITBM N0. 3: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AQBNDA ITBM N0. 4: Consideration of an appeal of a deteraination of the Building Official to require reaoval of ob3ectionable or unsightly vegetation in excess of 12" in height oa the property at 100 Pershing. Appeal is in the nacre of property opners, Gary and Deborah Nelson. It was ascertained that apparently the appellant had not received adequate notice of the meeting and was unable to attend, so the Board chose to reschedule consideration of this appeal at a meeting to be held on Monday, September 25th or Tuesday, September 26th, with the applicant to be given the choice. Mr. Henry asked for an explanation of the reasons for sending 2 different notices of the alleged violation to the landowner. Mr. Perry explained that the first notice which was sent out in July mistakenly referred to violation of an ordinance which was no longer valid. A second notice was sent to Mr. Nelson in August which referred to violation of Ordinance No. 1811, the ordinance which had replaced the previous ordinance, and the one in effect since May, 1989. Mr. Perry added that the current ordinance offers an appeal process, whereas the original ordinance did not. Mrs. Banks added that the new, current ordinance was developed and approved as a result of the weed/wild flower controversy the City had experienced. Mr. Cronan referred to Section 1:C.(3) of Ordinance 1811 and asked exactly what that meant and Mrs. Banks stated that is one of the sections of the ordinance which would • be subject to interpretation. Mr. Henry said it would indeed be difficult to mow where there are a lot of closely spaced trees because of the difficulty in getting a mower in. Mr. Cronan stated that he thinks it is very important for the City to have some . uniformity to code enforcement rather than enforcement on a complaint basis as is reported to be the case in the staff report. Mr. Perry explained that basically this ordinance is enforced on a complaint basis, but there have been instances when the Building division initiates the complaint. Mr. Ruesink said that if the Board upholds the Building Official's judgment, there might be more complaints registered with the City. Mr. Cronan said that is not the way an ordinance should be handled, adding that he does not want action taken by the City or the Board to cause neighborhood squabbles. He explained that he objects to being the cause of people reporting on other people. Mr. Henry pointed out that when proactive enforcement begins, it will help preclude the City being the cause of "tattling" of one neighbor on another. Mr. Henry then referred to Section 1:C.(4), and asked how the language "cultivation of wild flowers" would apply if one were referring to a large acreage. Mr. Perry used the large undeveloped land in Emerald Forest as an example of a large tract on which the perimeter has been mowed for a distance of 100 feet from the property line, and added that he has not had a single complaint about this type of treatment on this property. Mr. Cronan asked if wild flowers are a separate issue and Mrs. Banks replied that they have become a separate issue, so they have been addressed by special controls during a specific time of the year. Mr. Ruesink then asked what options are available to this Board after it has heard both sides of s story in the case of an appeal of a decision. Mrs. Banks stated there is no variance procedure included in this ordinance, and the Board's options • are to uphold, reverse or modify the Building Official's interpretation as to whether a subject area has weeds which are too tall and which have not been mowed back 100 feet from the property line, or if the property is instead, a "heavily wooded area filled with uncultivated underbrush". She explained that if the decision is that it is heavily wooded..., the decision of the Building Official could be reversed. Mr. Cronan said that if there is no legitimate variance allowed by this ordinance, what then, because if it's a matter of fact, why should this Board hear it? Mrs. Banks said that several parts of the ordinance are subject to interpretation, listing the section referred to earlier, and added "objectionable or unsightly vegetation" as a phrase which could be subject to interpretation, because what is unsightly to one person may be something beautiful in its natural state to someone else. Mrs. Baker asked if the Board can interpret something as not being unsightly, or not being weeds and being grass or groundcover instead, or that a lot or portion of a lot is heavily wooded with uncultivated underbrush, and Mrs. Banks replied that would be correct, and added that the phrase "lack of vegetation management" was used to replace "uncultivated." Mr. Ruesink asked if a definition of "heavily wooded" could be provided to the Board and Mrs. Banks said that is a phrase which is subject to interpretation. Mrs. Banks added that "cultivated" and "uncultivated" have not been defined in the ordinance either, and that is because those citizens preparing the ordinance chose not to address that, and to make it subject to interpretation. • Mr. Henry pointed out that on a regular sized city lot, the requirement of "vegetation management" within 100 feet of the property line or within 50 feet of a structure, would require that the entire lot needs to be mowed. Mr. Perry replied ZBA Minutes 9-19-89 page 2 that is his interpretation. • Mr. Ruesink said that since there are no provisions for variances included in this ordinance, he does not see much reason for this Board to take action in the future because the requirements to be enforced seem to be pretty clear cut. Mr. Henry said that the Board is here to allow the landowner to have an appeal, but added that he really wants to see compliance with the ordinance all over the City. Mrs. Banks stated that the ZBA is a fact finding board which interprets or makes rulings, and if the appeal only concerns weeds or grasses over 12" in height the decision would be easy, but she pointed out that much of the ordinance is subject to interpretation, and listed "uncultivated underbrush" as an example. Mr. Ruesink said that the decision has been made to reschedule consideration of this appeal until the next meeting. Mr. Henry made a motion to table the decision until a time when the appellant can attend. Mrs. Baker seconded the motion which carried unanimously (4-0). A(iBNDA ITBP! HO. 5: Other bnaineea. There was no other business. A(iBNDA ITBM AIO. 6: Adjourn. Mrs. Baker made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Henry seconded the motion which carried unanimously {4-0). APPROVED: Chairman, Davi uesink ATTEST: ------------------------------ City Secretary, Dian Jones ZBA 9-~9-89 Page 3 YONING-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER DATE ~~/ NAME _ADDRESS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7• 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. , 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23• - 24. 25.