Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/11/1990 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments• MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WORKSHOP CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Special Meeting - 9-11-90 5:30-7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Henry, Vice Chairman Baker, Members Lane and Yarbrough, Alternate Members Phinney and DeOtte. MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Cronan and Alternate Members Kennady and Gaston. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Kee, Assistant Planner Kuenzel, City Attorney Locke, Assistant City Attorney Coats, Development Review Coord. Volk, and Planning Technician Rosier. Ms. Kuenzel dispersed packets of information to the Board members. She then preceded to read the moot case to Board and asked them to keep it in mind as the other discussions • concerning laws, rules, and procedures, transpired. Cathy Locke explained main motions and incidental motions falter the 1st motion) as she briefly touched on Robert's Rules of Order. She said that the Board should vote on the amendment first, then on the motion as amended. Brett Henry asked if general agreement among the Board Members was adequate as an amendment or if they must take a more formal action. Mrs. Locke strongly urged that the Board formalize any discussion with a motion to clarify their actions to the applicant, who may be in the audience. Mrs. Locke then explained 5 landmark court cases pertaining to the ZBA. She said that typically, the adjacent property owner who is unhappy with a granted variance is turned down by the court because the court usually favors landowner's rights. Likewise, a landowner who has a variance request denied, has a good chance of having the Board's decision overturned in court. Mrs. Locke and Ms. Kee stressed that the purpose of pointing out the zoning law trends is not to influence the Board's • decisions. They urged the Board to continue making decisions as they have been and let the Legal Department handle any appeals. Ms. Kee added that the Board should make clear in their motions, the reasons for granting/denying the request. (Decisions should be backed up with factual findings.) • Locke ointed out the followin zonin inter retations set P g g P by the courts: 1. A tennis court is a structure. 2. The desire to preserve trees is not solely a financial hardship. 3. Lot shape may be considered a special condition if it is different from that of surrounding lots. 4. If the City approved the site plan, the court may rule that the variance is necessary because the City intentionally created the situation. 5. The Board cannot change the use nor the character of the district. Mrs. Locke told the Board to keep an eye on the overall number of cases granted. She said that Staff should make the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. She added that Special Exception Cases are usually "cut and dry." It should be pretty obvious as to whether there is good reason to grant a variance. Mr. Henry pointed out that the Weed Ordinance is a matter of interpretation of the ordinance. • Mr. Lane asked how bound the Board is, by past cases. Locke said that the Board should consider previous action in similar cases, on similar lots or sites and try to be consistent. Ms. Kuenzel said that the Board members are not personally liable in any way for decisions they may make. Mrs. Volk asked when abstentions may be used. Mr. Henry asked about conflicts of interest in conjunction with abstentions. Mrs. Locke said that conflicts of interest deal most often with ownership interest. She said that if a conflict of interest occurs, the Board member should fill out one of the forms and not serve on the Board for that item. Ms. Kuenzel asked if a member could abstain if they feel uncomfortable with an item. Mrs. Locke said that we are not really supposed to, but we often do as a political gesture. She reminded the Board that 4 members must vote (including the Chairman). • Ms. Kuenzel reviewed the rules and procedures form. • to come Mr. Henry asked how important it is to get speakers to the podium. Mrs. Locke stressed the importance of having people come forward and state their name. She said it is necessary when transcribing the minutes. Concerning the atmosphere of the meeting, Locke cautioned that if the meeting was conducted too relaxed, the applicant may be more mad than at a firmly conducted meeting. She also warned against being pulled into verbal altercations with the applicant. Mr. Henry asked if the Board members can collaborate on motions. Mrs. Locke said that combined efforts are fine. Locke announced that Neil Cotes will be attending the ZBA meetings as Legal Counsel. Mr. DeOtte asked if having a Board of 4 instead of 5 members, made a difference in court on appeal. • Mrs. Locke did not believe so. Ms. Kee said that the applicant should be given the opportunity before the case is presented, to request that his/her item be tabled until the Board has 5 members present. She noted that the Board has set a 90 day limit to tabled items. At the end of the 90 days, the Board may deny the item without consideration of the request. Ms. Kuenzel asked if the Board can close a public hearing if all of the facts have been presented and arguments have become too emotional. Mrs. Locke said that the situation can be handled tactfully. She suggested saying, "Does anyone have anything to say that has not already been presented?" She also said that members can say: "I call the question...," which ends the discussion. Then the Chairman announces that the Board will vote on the motion to close the public hearing. Ms. Kee felt uneasy with the Board's involvement in the design of the applicant's project. Mr. Henry pointed out are considered by the with the medicine." • A eneral discussion g followed. Locke said applicant's inability that the alternatives and conditions Board in effort to offer "some sugar ~f what constitutes a hardship that a hardship could be the to use his/her lot as he/she chooses. • Ms. Kee pointed out that the Board has considered an inherited situation can constitute a hardship. Mrs. Locke and Ms. Kee said that Staff researches how the inherited condition came into existence. Ms. Kuenzel returned the discussion to the moot case. She presented the 3 options. Mrs. Locke said that the existence of an 8 foot privacy fence could be considered a special condition of the lot. She said that she would grant the variance with the condition that the fence be built first. She said that the Board could grant the variance with the stipulation that the original driveway be turned into a sidewalk. Ms. Kee said that if a compromise could be reached, that would be great. She cautioned the Board not to become too creative. She also explained that Staff checks for compliance with the conditions of approval prior to issuance of the Building Permit. The meeting was adjourned. ~J •