Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/15/1990 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments~~ • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR MOTIONS: WEED ORDINANCE APPEAL OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR'S INTERPRETATION - From City of College Station ordinance 1811 (Chapter 7, Section 1, Subsection C of the Code of Ordinances) I move to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Code Enforcement Coordinator in the enforcement of this ordinance. Motion made by ~_~r~~~ f/( . Ci~~~ Date ~ ~ l Seconded by L°~6~i"~ E69~~e' Cl Results of voting: 5~-''0 Chair Signature ~~!~i~//• WHEN RULING NOT TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OR INTERPRETATION • MADE BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR, USE THE FOLLOWING FORM: I move to interpret Ordinance 1811 in the following manner: Motion made by Date Seconded by Results of voting Chair Signature • • y~°~~ ZONING-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR MOTIONS: WEED ORDINANCE APPEAL OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR'S INTERPRETATION - From City of College Station Ordinance 1811 (Chapter 7, Section 1, Subsection C of the Code of Ordinances) I move to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Code Enforcement Coordinator in the enforcement of this _~ ~. Ordinance .~ ~~~.. ~~ ~~'i.< ~1~ _~-, t ci < r ~ .. ~~ ~~ s' u ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G; ~~ ~~ ~ €~ ., Motion made by ~ ~ -s. ~ ~ r~ `~~ `` Y~ `~ Date ~ ~ Seconded by ~~ x `S°f` ~.s ~ N it ti Results of voting: Chair Signature 4~ ~ ~i~~ • WHEN RULING NOT TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OR INTERPRETATION MADE BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR, USE THE FOLLOWING FORM: I move to interpret Ordinance 1811 in the following manner: Motion made by Seconded by Results of voting Chair Signature Date ~~ ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR MOTIONS: WEED ORDINANCE APPEAL OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR'S INTERPRETATION - From City of College Station Ordinance .1811 (Chapter 7, Section 1, Subsection C of the Code of Ordinances) I move to fr the decision or interpretation made by the Code Enforcement Coordinator in the enforcement of this ordinance. ~l ~ ~~ Motion made by ~/~ ~~~~~~~c~7 Date Seconded by ~-~~5 C~ ~`~~h Results of voting: ~ - ~ Chair Signature • WHEN RULING NOT TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OR INTERPRETATION MADE BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR, USE THE FOLLOWING FORM: I move to interpret Ordinance 1811 in the following manner: Motion made by Seconded by Results of voting Chair Signature Date • MINUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustment May 15, 1990 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Henry, Alternate Members Kennady, Gaston, and Phinney MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Ruesink, Vice Chairman Gilmore, Members Cronan and Baker, Alternate Member Webb STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Callaway, Code Enforcement Coordinator Castolenia, and Planning Technician Rosier AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to Order - e~lar-atbn os fimctbns and Iltmitatbns oi' the Board. Acting Chairman Henry called the meeting to order and explained the functions and limitations of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Approval oi' minutes -meeting of May 1 ~ 1990. Mr. Kennady made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Phinney seconded the motion which carved unanimously. (4-0) AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Hear Visitors. No one spoke. Prior to consideration of the next agenda item, City Planner Callaway explained Chapter 7 Section 1 Subsection C of the City Codes and the Board's responsibilities relative to this ordinance. He pointed out the four situations which are exempted from the provisions of this subsection as the following: (1) State highway rights-of--way (2) Agricultural areas, agricultural meaning crop production and/or grazing. (3) Heavily wooded areas filled with uncultivated underbrush. (4) The cultivation of concentrated wildflowers from March 1 until June 15 of each year in areas where grasses and weeds do not exceed eighteen inches (18") in height. Mr. Callaway further explained that the City of College Station has purposely taken the stance of pro-active code enforcement. He said that code enforcement is listed as #6 on the City Council's priority list. He said that our position of Code Enforcement Coordinator was approved through the Budget Process by Council because of the importance placed on code enforcement. As a result of the creation of this new position, Mr. Callaway said that the Building Official no longer handles code enforcement cases. Mr. Callaway defined the process through which code violations are handled and the property owners are notified. He also defined the procedure for appeal of the Code Enforcement Coordinator's interpretation. He explained how the applicant may present his/her case. He further explained the Board's options for ruling. (to uphold or to reverse the decision made by the Code Enforcement Coordinator). He concluded by saying that Mr. Castolenia would be presenting the specifics of each case tonight. Mr. Gaston asked if the Board takes action to uphold Mr. Castolenia's decision, and the applicant refuses to comply, will the City mow the property and bill the property owner. Mr. Callaway said that Mr. Gaston's example was one option which the City may choose. He also stated that another option involves the City Attorney who may wish to become more involved depending on the case history. Mr. Gaston said that while driving by the subject properties, he noticed several other violations some on City owned property. He wondered how 'pro-active" is the City's code enforcement. Mr. Callaway said that the City's efforts are mainly concentrated on the Southgate area at this time. He said that we began around Holleman and have just completed a "sweep" in the Northgate area. He said that notices have been mailed out for that area as well as the necessary departments who handle City owned property. Callaway pointed out that these are traditionally our worst areas for code violations. He added that the City does not ignore other properties with violations in route to an address which received complaints. Mr. Isennady asked if the City has a definite plan strategy for addressing the different parts of town. Mr. Callaway said that we plan to address primarily those areas that have a history of problems with regard to codes and areas with high visibility (ie: along thoroughfares, focal points). After these areas are targeted, he said that efforts will branch out into other areas. Mr. Gaston asked what role "screening" plays in weed/grass code enforcement. Mr. Callaway said that if it is screened from our view then of course we are unlikely to detect it. However, code violations unseen could have potential impacts for fire. AiGENDiA ITEM N0.4: Conaideratbn of an appeal of a detezmirtation ai' the Code BnLorcement Coordirtatos to require removal ad objectionable ar unsightly vegetation in ezcess of 18' in height or< the property at ZtYl Walton. Appeal is in the name os property owner, Archie Julien. Code Enforcement Coordinator Castolenia began by saying that all of the cases on the agenda have previously violated the subject ordinance, Chapter 7 Section 1 Subsection C. He said that from ahealth/sanitation perspective, tall weeds and grass provide shelter for rodents. Mr. Phinney asked if this particular case was initiated due to a complaint. Mr. Castolenia said that he received a complaint about 206 Walton and noticed the weed~grass violations at this property, 207 Walton. He said that there were also other violations in the area including some on Harrington. Archie Julien came forward and was sworn in. He explained to the Board that he lives at the rear of his own vacant lot. He said that he is outside daily; there are no rodents nor trash. He explained that he is trying to return the lot to its "naturally wooded state." He said that the seedlings are growing and they might be accidently cut down if he mows. Plus, he added that mowing impedes the brush from overtaking the grass. Mr. Julien said that he is a Conservationist. He also told the Board that he wishes his case to be treated as a request for a variance because the growth of a forest would reduce the non- conformity of the lot. Mr. Gaston asked Mr. Julien if he had actually planted any wooded material (ie: trees, etc.). • , Mr. Julien said he had planted some trees. Mr. Gaston asked if he is planting portions of the lot in phases which would allow him to mow part of the lot while allowing planted forest materials to grow in another part. Mr. Julien said that he is, but it is such a slow process. He said that saplings are scattered throughout the property. Mr. Gaston said that he could not stretch his imagination far enough to consider the subject property "a heavily wooded azea filled with uncultivated underbrush.' He also asked where Mr. Julien lives because in driving by the property he noticed some cars parked in the yard. He warned Mr. Julien of other possible violations. Mr. Julien explained that he rents the property where he lives. There was discussion of the ownership of the subject lot. Mr. Kennady said that it seemed confusing to be trying to sell the lot while also trying to return it to a "naturally wooded state". Mr. Julien said he intends to work towards his goal until the lot is sold. Mr. Kennady asked if the surrounding lots contain houses. Mr. Julien said that his was the only vacant lot. He added that his property value would increase as a wooded lot. Mr. Julien said he did not like the ordinance because it is discretionary. He said that it allows the City to determine what is attractive and what is not. He reiterated his political protest to the clearing of rain forests in South America. Mr. Kennady asked Mr. Julien if he thought that his planted saplings would be cut down by the City. Mr. Julien said that the City has done that in years past. Mr. Gaston asked Mr. Julien if he would characterize this lot as the "cultivation of concentrated wild flowers." Mr. Julien said he was seeking exemption under "heavily wooded with dense undergrowth." Mr. Gaston pointed out that while he can appreciate the applicant's intentions, the natural state for the lot is not wooded. The area was originally a savannah. He said that since part of the lot was more wooded and the other is clearly not, he would like to reach a partial solution. Mr. Henry said that the heavily wooded portion was not in violation. There was general discussion of previous cases and enforcement of a partial solution. Mr. Henry said that the "heavily wooded" aspect is the basis for his argument because the applicant is not claiming "cultivation of wildflowers". He said that where the mowing should stop must be resolved between the applicant and staff. Mr. Gaston and Mr. Henry agreed that the wooded area to the rear of the lot is already exempt from this ordinance. Mr. Gaston said that based on exemption #3 instead of #4, he made a motion "to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Code Enforcement Coordinator in the enforcement of this ordinance". Mr. Kennady seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (4-0) AiGENDiA ITEM NO. B: Consideration as as appeal os a deterrninatiart of the Code Enibraement Coordinator to require rertwval o~ objectionable ar unsightly v~eQetation is emcees of 18' in height art the pmoperty at 208 Walton. Appeal is to the name of James Srteip. Mr. Castolenia introduced this item. Mr. Phinney said that he had driven by this lot and noticed that portions had been mowed. Mr. Castolenia said that violations still existed. Mr. Gaston said that there are some wildflowers which exceed 18" when cultivated. He asked Mr. Callaway to explain Council's intent. Mr. Callaway said that 18' is not a magic number. Council realized that this limit did not allow cultivation of all types of wildflowers. However, they felt it would allow for some cultivation on residential lots where wildflowers and people must co-exist. Mr. Callaway said that adoption of this ordinance was based on concerns related to insects, rodents, and fire hazards. Mr. Phinney asked if the applicant was claiming exemption #2 or exemption #4. Mr. Callaway said that the applicant would answer. Mr. Phinney asked Mr. Callaway if the referral to agricultural areas referred to the A-O zoning district. Mr. Callaway said that the ordinance was not referring to a zoning district but rather the usage of the property. Mr. Gaston made the point that tomatoes sometimes grow in excess of 18" and may seem unsightly. Mr. Callaway said that the ordinance specifically states, 'objectionable or unsightly vegetation includes all weeds and grasses which exceed twelve inches (12') in height." He said that the • main problems encountered by staff are not gardens and flower beds but rather weeds and grasses which contain some wildflowers and exceed 18" in height. Mr. James Kneip was sworn in. He said that he was cultivating wildflowers and growing a garden on the property at 206 Walton. He said that he believes he has removed the grass and weeds. He also showed a packet of wildflower seeds which he said was obtained from the Chamber of Commerce. He said that in his interpretation of the ordinance, the height of wildflowers is not restricted, just that of the weeds/grasses. Mr. Phinney asked if the applicant if he planted the wildflowers from seed. Mr. Kneip said that he did. Mr. Kennady asked Mr. Castolenia if the applicant had partially satisfied the terms of the ordinance. Mr. Castolenia said that weeds/grasses in excess of 18" still existed. Mr. Kennady asked how the City will handle the situation. Mr. Castolenia said they could keep one area for the cultivation of wildflowers but, the rest of the area which is unsightly must be mowed. Mr. Gaston said that he could not tell the difference between a weed and a wildflower and questioned whether staff could make that determination. He also asked what the consequences would be if the Board upheld Mr. Castolenia's interpretation. Mr. Castolenia said the applicant would have to comply with the 18" limit shortly after this meeting and comply with the 12" height limit including those areas with wildflowers on June 15, • 1990. • Mr. Gaston clarified that the garden was exempted from this height limitation. There was general discussion of the wording of this ordinance which everyone seemed to agree was poorly written. Mr. Phinney said that the Board must also determine whether or not the wildflowers are cultivated and/or concentrated. There was general discussion as to what should be left to the Code Enforcement Coordinator's discretion, such as a determination of objectionable/unsightly. Mr. Phinney believed that the staff must determine which area is concentrated. Mr. Itennady said the Board must make that determination. He said that he believes that the Board entrusts Mr. Castolenia with their comments and intent. Mr. Gaston said that he would like more guidance for the Board relative to health safety. Otherwise, it is essentially a matter of taste. Mr. Henry reminded everyone that 18" is pretty high. He said that most lawns are kept at 4-6". Mr. Kennady believes that the Board is being called on to be arbiters of taste while making every effort to consider the wildflowers. Mr. Kennady made a motion "to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Code Enforcement Coordinator in the enforcement of this ordinance, and that this decision be issued May 20, 1990 by 5:00 P.M. Mr. Henry seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (4-0) AiGENDiA ITEM NO. B: Consideratioa of an appeal ai' a deterrniztation of the Code Eit~orceane=tt Coo~diztator to reciuite removal of objectlonable or unsightly vegetation is ezoess ai' 1 S' itt height an the property at 1808 Lenart Circle. Appeal is in the name oi[ property owner, Julius Dleilaert. Mr. Castolenia introduced this item. Mr. Phinney said he believed that the lot had been partially mowed. Mr. Castolenia said he did not know. Mr. Gaston asked if the violations occurred only on Lot 20. He said that the pictures appear to have been taken of Lot 21. He pointed out that the Board could not take action on any other lot since legal notification indicated only Lot 20. There was general consensus that the pictures were of Lot 21. Mrs. Dielkert of 1605 Lenart Circle was sworn in. She said that she has a degree in Botany from Texas A&M University. She referred to the letter enclosed in the Board's packets. She explained that Lot 21 had been scraped clean by the developer of the subdivision. She said that they have replanted the lot with native Texas plants. She explained that the Natural Wildlife Association is reviewing her lot as a registered wildlife habitat. She disputed the fact that her lot gives harbor/shelter for rats. She stated that rats migrate when mowing takes place. She said that they safely control the rat population on their lots. She also explained that they have only seen harmless, green snakes. She explained that they have been working on their property for nearly 30 years. • Mr. Kennady said that Lot 20 is the only subject before the Board. If it has been mowed, then there is nothing to consider. Mr. Gaston pointed out that she began working on her property prior to when the weed ordinance was adopted. Mr. Kennady made a motion "to affirm the decision or interpretation made by the Code Enforcement Coordinator in the enforcement of this ordinance." He clarified that this would not affect the habitat they are trying to create. Mr. Phinney commended Mrs. Dielkert's efforts but cautioned her against using the "gardens" as an excuse not to mow. Mr. Gaston said lots 19 & 20 are heavily wooded and would be exempt under that condition. Mr. Gaston seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (4-0) ACENIaA ITEM NO. T: Other Buslneae. Mr. Gaston expressed a need for accurate/complete information on these cases. He said other violations in the area should be noted. Mr. Callaway said that the Board should be updated on other case work in the area. (ie: other notices sent out in the same area, etc...) Mr. Kennady said he would like some history to explain the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Callaway said he would be provided with the Council minutes from the meeting where the ordinance was adopted. Mr. Gaston asked if surrounding property owners were notified of this hearing. • . ;- . Mr. Callaway said that notification was not required as a part of this process. AiGBNDiA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn Mr. Gaston made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Phinney seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: Acting Chairman, Brett Henry ATTEST: City Secretary, Connie Hooks • • -~ , ~~~~d ~/ _~ ,~ ,,~ ~ , . 1~~6 i2 ,y9c a ~ ~~/ . r a X / d ~ ~ ~ d ~~ ,~ ~~ ,i ~ _ ~ ,~ C~ ~ ~ -`~ o. ~~'~~ ~a ~ ~ ; ~~L 6 ~- _ ,~ J ~~~' c~ ~ ~ ~ ~Lt ~ x~~ ~. ~~~~ ~~. ,~~yf_ f G !~ ~' ,., ~ / .~ ~ ~~' '~~ c > ~~ r9 //// ~ ~L'~~ C~~.~-o C~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~' :~'~'-~ iii C, o / rQG~' ffQ'rie~~~e ~. S. iT~! ~~~,r ~ 1 .yy~ ) ~~ ~ r •~- ~ ~ ~~ -- ' ~ _ ~ C _ ~t~C ~ ,G ~ ,~ ~ i` ' I ~_ z9~~, ~a2~~~N~- _ Cra « A T--c. ~ s C~^~7 ~own.cs2 - 29oZ ADRr~'^~N6"~ 308 f1o~~YBb-,e.Ry f~•,i~ ~cu~,D~c-e~ Co • gU3o3 ~q c~ 5 Cam. Gcll.p..c~e.. Sjc-"o-~,-~ T~ ~77~'4 ~ ~,~t 3~ C R '202 ~1~.~''~eu-Ke ~. l ~ ~' ~- ~asF ~ o ~ ~ T'x 7 7 8 ~S oZ9o~ /~i>~ane .p- ~' /~~2 Sfa fi on ~ 7'7~5~ ~~~3 G~~~~ ~ , ~ ~ ~~ ~~ Zgl~ ~~ ~~z'~'~yc ' ~ ?X 7 7 ~Ks~ l~~C~?~ ~'C_. ~r (~-'. . , ~ n of ~ ~ ~~ ~_~. ~', ~ ~, ~, (~ I ~ ~ r ~ ~~, ~ ? ~~1~~ C ~~ c9 2 ~ il ~ A ~v,,~,ti-~,~.,.e. r ZONING BARD OF ADJUSTMENT GUEST REGISTER DATE M 15 1990 ay , NAME 1 ADDRESS . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. r ~ 24. 25.