Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/1980 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ZONING BOAP.D OF ADJUSTMENT ~ OCT. 21, 1980 Members Present: Chairman Harper, Upham, 4lagner, Burke, Alternate Boughton Members Absent: Mathewson Staff Present: Callaway Agenda Item No ..1 - Approval of minutes, Meeting of September 16, 1980 - Boughton moved to approve the minutes of September 15. The motion was seconded by Upham and passed unanimously. • da Item ~fo. 2 - Considerati II I oRl am _ Q(17 l-(nl i l~ .. of a request for a variance in the name Harper discussed previous Board review of this matter and asked for ad- ditional comments from J.U. LeBlanc. LeBlanc stated that all neighbors contacted with regards to the matter before the Board had given their support to the request.. Harper inquired with regards any hardships to be a result of compliance with the ordinance. LeBlanc said that cor~pliance would result in in- creased costs, poor air circulation and decreased energy efficiency. I~Jagner asked if the alternative solution of acquiring additional property had been considered. LeBlanc replied that this was not reasonable and would affect his neighbor's setbacks. Upham stated that the granting of a variance should be based upon some unique problem with the land, not upon human error. Burke stated that there is a need to use reason when dealing with a problem which is a matter of inches. Harper discussed variance requirements. and the need to use reason_ Upham stated .that the variance request was based upon "want" rather than "need". ~: • Page 2 Harper moved to approve the request, allowing a seven fgot (7`) side ' setback,,due to~.the special condition of the house being not parallel . to the property line, such variance being not contrary to the public interest. The requested variance failed by the following vote: For: Harper, Rurke, Boughton 'Opposed: !•lagner, 'Upham A enda Item No. 3 - Re uest fora Variance in the name of D.R. Cain - .800 Celinda Circle - Cal~laway explained the nature of the setback encroachment, approval of building location 'by City Building Inspections, and discovery of the encroachment by a surveyor. Upham pointed out that surveys often vary between different surveyors. Burke stated although the City approved the structure, the Builder is responsible for his errors. -..> Harper discussed past variances along curved property lines, and that . the 3 foot request eras not a very significant variance along a circular Line. Harry Bostic described the problems encountered on performing slab inspections on ;lots Nrith curved iot lines. The Board discussed the concept of the "Public Interest" and the need for consistency in reaching a decision. Following a discussion of the ordinance requirements for granting a variance, Harper moved to grant the request, such variance being not detrimental to the Public Interest, and based upon the unique condition of the curved corner lot line. The motion was seconded by t•lagner, and failed 6y-the following note For : None Opposed: Unanimous Agenda Item No. 4 - Adjourn Upham moved to adjourn. The motion ~•ras seconded by 4lagner, and passed unanimously.