Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/25/1989 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment SPECIAL MEETING September 25, 1989 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ruesink, Members Baker, Henry & Cronan MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Gi lmore & Alternate Member Webb STAFF PRESENT: Building Official Coy Perry, Assistant City Attorney Banks an d Planning Technician Volk AGBNDA ITBM N0. 1: Call to order - explanation of functions and liaitations of the Board. Chairman Ruesink opened the public hearing and explained the functions and limitations of the Board including the specific regulations to follow when considering an appeal of the decision of the Building Official concerning the City's Weed Ordinance. AGBNDA ITBM N0. 2: Approval of ainutes - aeeting of Septeaber 19, 1989. • Mrs. Baker made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected and submitted by staff. Mr. Henry seconded the motion which carried unanimously {4-0). AGBNDA ITBM N0. 3: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AGBNDA ITBM NO. 4: Reconsideration of an appeal of a deteraination of the Building Official to require removal of objectionable or unsightly vegetation in excess of 12" in height on the property at 100 Pershing. Appeal is in the nase of property oMners, Gary and Deborah Nelson. This itea Was tabled at the aeeting on 9-19-89. Building Official Coy Perry gave the staff report, including the information that the first complaint about this lot was received on 6-28-89 which triggered the first notice of alleged violation to Mr. Nelson dated 7-5-89. After it was determined that the first notice sent was not valid because it referred an incorrect ordinance number, a second notice of the alleged violation referring to Ordinance No. 1811, the correct ordinance, was sent on 8-23-89. Mr. Perry reported that he had met with Mr. Nelson on the site and explained what the City expected for compliance, and showed photos taken of the site during that visit to the Board. • Mr. Perry stated that he had, to date, received a total of 5 complaints about this lot. He added that following the notice of violation, Mr. Nelson had cut the weeds on the perimeter of this lot for a distance of approximately 10 feet into the lot, however the grass/weeds in the center of the lot are still over 12 inches in height . and represent a violation of the ordinance which states "...It shall be unlawful for any person owning, claiming, occupying, or having supervision or control of any real property within the City to permit weeds, brush, or any objectionable or unsightly vegetation to grow due to lack of vegetation management upon any such real property within one hundred feet of any property line or within fifty feet of any structure. It shall be the duty of such person to keep the area from the line of his property to the curb line adjacent to it free and clear of matter referred to above. Objectionable or unsightly vegetation includes all weeds and grasses which exceed twelve inches in height..." The Board had no questions to ask staff. Gary Nelson, 110 Pershing came forward, was sworn in and referred to the letter he wrote, and specifically to the second paragraph which states his support of an ordinance for the public good in preventing unhealthy and unsightly conditions such as stagnant water, trash, excess weed growth, and other unsightly vegetation, but added that it is his contention that the ground cover at 100 Pershing does not fall into any of those categories. Mr. Nelson stated that he wants to comply 100 with the ordinance, but the subject lot is undeveloped and was bought for that reason with the future plans to include building a fence around the lot. He said that if he has to cut the entire lot, he would be forced to develop the land. He went on to explain that about 6 months ago the lot was completely enclosed by vegetation and since that time the City or someone else came in and cut the trees and made holes around the perimeter of part of the property, and by doing so, removed much of the screening vegetation. Mr. Cronan asked if the cutting and digging was • done on Mr. Nelson's property or in an easement, and Mr. Nelson replied that it might have been done in an easement since it is near a sewer line. Mr. Nelson asked if the ordinance means that all undeveloped land must be developed, because if this lot must be mowed, it will be opened for students to cut across to get to and from the campus. He stated that the phrase "lack of vegetation management" is the phrase he is not completely sure he understands, and asked if that phrase means land which has been cultivated and then the vegetation was not managed, or does it refer to ell undeveloped land in the City. He said he would prefer to cut only the perimeter of this lot and to keep the interior in its natural state, but added that he understands that if this is not granted, the City's intent is that every lot must be developed and cut, not just this lot. Mr. Ruesink looked to Mrs. Banks for a reply to Mr. Nelson's question and Mrs. Banks stated that as she understands what Mr. Nelson is saying, he is unsure if "vegetation management" applies in the case under consideration. Mr. Nelson stated that is correct. Mrs. Banks replied that "developed" land is not the only question, and the intent of the ordinance is that land would have to be mowed within 100 feet of a property line and within 50 feet of any structure. She added that an interpretation of the phrase "vegetation management" would be up to the Board. Mr. Ruesink said the term "management" would seem to mean keeping growth to 12 inches or less in height, unless there are some wildflowers which could have an exemption from this interpretation from March 1 until June 15 of each year. Mr. Henry stated that at the workshop, sizes of vacant lots in the City were • addressed, and it was determined that while there appears to be many large vacant lots, if those lots are in a platted subdivision and are actually multiple lots rather than one large lot, each lot would have to meet the ordinance which requires ZBA Minutes 9-25-89 Page 2 keeping the groundcover to no taller than 12 inches in height for a distance of 100 • feet from the property line around the entire perimeter of the lot, which would in most cases require the entire lot to be maintained to a height no taller than 12 inches. Mr. Henry then explained that because the subject property is in a high traffic, high visibility area, it has become the subject of the circumstances under which this Board is bound and that is to uphold the City's codes and ordinances. He added that to this date, it has been impossible to identify every lot which violates an ordinance, but in the very near future, the City's code enforcement will become proactive, and many more lots in violation will be identified. Mr. Nelson then paraphrased for clarification as follows: If he owned a big lot, then he would have to keep it mowed to a height no taller than 12 inches for 100 feet from all property lines and for ~0 feet from all sides of every structure. Mrs. Banks stated that is correct. Mr. Nelson then stated that this ordinance seems to be fair and he agrees with it, but he would like to state 2 things for the record: He regrets that his photos had to be used to notify other property owners of alleged violations and he has been hounded by peogle wanting to mow his lot ever since he received his notice of alleged violation. He added the hounding seemed to be more than coincidental, and has the appearance of providing a means for someone to make money. Mrs. Banks stated that while the City regrets Mr. Nelson has been so bothered, the letters which are sent are a matter of public record, so apparently they are being used by someone to drum up business. • Mr. Henry said that while he understands that Mr. Nelson did not mean for his photos to be used for the purposes of notifying others of alleged violations, he really does not see anything wrong with taking pictures of other lots which appear not to comply with ordinance regulations. Mr. Cronan stated that he agrees with the decision of the Building Official, but he believes the point should be well taken that an ordinance should apply to all people, and in the near future, enforcement will become proactive, with inspectors making tours of the City and enforcement will become more equal and will be easier to accept. Mrs. Baker told Mr. Nelson that she appreciates his value of nature and knows complying with this ruling is a difficult thing for him to do, but hopes he understands the importance of the decision. Mr. Nelson said that he bought this and other property approximately 8 years ago, and his intent is to keep the end lot vacant, and hopes to build a brick and wood fence around the lot and make the lot an entrance to Pershing Drive. Mr. Ruesink thanked Mr. Nelson for bringing this to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for consideration. Mr. Henry then made a motion to uphold the interpretation made by the Building Official in the enforcement of this ordinance (No. 1811). Mr. Cronan seconded this motion which carried unanimously (4-0). r-~ U ZBA Minutes 9-25-89 Page 3 AGBNDA ITBM N0. 5: Other buaineas. • There was no other business except the announcement that there will be a meeting on October 3, 1989, and Mr. Ruesink informed everyone he would be unable to attend that meeting. AGBNDA ITBM NO. 6: Adjourn. Mrs. Baker made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Henry seconded the motion which carried unanimously (4-0). APPROVED: ~C~p ` C ----------------------------- Chairman, Dav i d C. Ruesink ATTEST: ----------------------------- Gity Secretary, Dian Jones • • ZBA Minutes 9-25-89 Page 4 • NAME ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER DATE ~ 2~- ~-G~'~ ~J~J ADDRESS 1. ~ 3 r~Q~~2 2~v~i~ h,,,.~ssxs n-~ C/5 %~' 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. lo. • 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23• 24. 25.