HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/1999 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMINUTES
•
Zoning Board of Adjustment
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
October 19, 1999
6:00 P.M.
•
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Alexander, Murphy, Happ, Alternate Members Dr. Bailey
& Lewis.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bond, Hill and Alternate Members Ellis & Searcy.
STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Assistant Grace,
Staff Planner Anderson, Senior Assistant City Attorney Nemcik,
Assistant City Attorney Ladd and Assistant City Attorney DeCluitt.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -Explanation of functions of the Board.
Chairman Alexander called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Board.
AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consider Absence Request from meeting.
Mr. Alexander explained to the Board the absence requests turned in for Leslie Hill and Randy Bond.
Mr. Murphy made the motion to excuse the absence of Mr. Hill. Dr. Bailey seconded the motion,
which passed unopposed (S-0).
Mr. Happ made the motion to excuse the absence of Mr. Bond. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion,
which passed unopposed (S-0).
AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Approval of minutes from September 21,1999 meeting of the Board.
Mr. Happ made the motion to approve the meeting minutes as written. Dr. Bailey seconded the
motion. Mr. Happ stated for the record that Deborah Grace, Secretary to the Board, done an incredible
job on the minutes and commented how accurate they were. The meeting minutes were approved
unoppo<ed (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a request for a rear setback variance at 1107
Woodhaven lot 4, block 8, of the Glenhaven Subdivision. Applicant is Robert and Frances
~~~1 cG wire.
Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and stated that the applicant had told her of an error
• in her staff report. The maximum variance the applicant is requesting is 9 feet instead of the 8 feet
written in the report. Ms. Anderson continued and told the Board that the purpose of the variance is to
construct an addition to asingle-family home.
The main house itself, which includes the proposed expansion, is required to meet a rear setback
distance of 25 feet from the rear property line. The applicant proposes to construct atwo-room
addition to the main dwelling adjacent to the covered patio .area. The home sits at an angle on the
• subject property, causing the proposed encroachment into the setback area to range in depth. The rear
setback request ranges from approximately 17 feet the furthermost point to 22 feet.
The applicant offers the unusual lot dimensions, which make the property extremely narrow, as a
possible special condition. A smaller buildable area may also be caused by the subject property's lot
configuration. In addition, the applicant adds that the current dwelling is built to the building setback
lines on all sides and thus, without a variance no addition to the house may be constructed.
The applicant offers the following hardships to the required setback standard:
1. Aesthetics -the addition would not be visible from the right-of--way and is proposed to be built to
blend with the existing residence.
2. The applicant states the need for an additional half-bath that does not require access through a
bedroom and which would accommodate guests using the swimming pool as a hardship for a
portion of the addition.
3. The applicant has indicated that if he is required to follow the alternative and remove the wood
deck, it would also result in the removal of some trees.
Mr. Happ asked if the slab for the addition would enter into the 5 foot unobstructed aerial easement in
• the rear of the property. Ms. Anderson replied that it would reach up to the easement.
Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing and asked for anyone wanting to speak in favor of the
variance.
Robert McGuire stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. McGuire
stated that the house was built up to every building line. Mr. McGuire explained that his family has
grown and they have personal needs for expanding the dinning, kitchen and also the addition of a half
bath. Mr. McGuire brought before the Board a copy of the floor plan for better perspective of the
addition. Mr. McGuire explained the point of the encroachment.
With no one else stepping forward, Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing.
Mr. Happ made the motion to authorize a variance to the minimum setback from the terms of this
ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the
present design~oor plan of the house renders the locations of the new bath to be installed in this
optimum location. The house location on the lot is also restrictive. The entire bath is not over the line
just in the corner; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in
unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: the applicant has few options available to locate a new
bathroom due to the irregular lot shape and dimensions. Other options require removal of trees and a
deck; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Dr.
• Bailey seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (S-0).
ZBA Minutes October 19, 1999 Page 2 oj8
AGENDA ITEM 5: Consideration of a special exception request -replacement of one non-
conforming use for another at 4304 Harvey Road. Applicant is Floyd H. Manning.
• Senior Planner McCully stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. McCully told the
Board that the applicant is requesting the special exception to allow a new restaurant at the site of a
convenience store. The site includes a legal nonconforming commercial building with an associated
parking lot that provides 12 spaces in front. A gravel lot was installed recently but is not recognized by
the city to be counted as parking because it is in violation of city standards.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
The subject property was annexed into the City in 1980, at which time a preexisting convenience store
and service station were permitted to continue as a legal nonconforming use. In Texas, existing uses
are permitted to continue upon annexation; however, such protection does not extend to expansions or
use changes. The City of College Station prohibits changes unless a site is brought up to code or the
Zoning Board of Adjustments grants a special exception.
The current owner purchased the site in 1989 and added barbecue sales as an accessory to the c-store.
The barbecue addition would not have triggered code compliance at that time if the sales were
primarily for off-premise consumption. A few months ago, the owner began to change the use from
retail to a restaurant with on-premise consumption. Under the Zoning Ordinance, the change increased
his parking requirement from 1 space per 250sf to 1 space per 65sf. This change increased his parking
requirement from 10 spaces, which currently exist in front of the building with 2 additional spaces; to
3 7 spaces. In order to comply with the Zoning Ordinance, the owner would have been required to
• rezone the property to a commercial classification, and he would have been required to add 25
additional parking spaces that meet all current standards listed in Section 9 Parking Requirements and
Section 11 Landscaping. However, the changes were made without meeting the Zoning Ordinance
requirements and the site is therefore currently in violation.
In order to grant the special exception to allow the substitution, the Board must end that the proposed
use will be less detrimental to the surrounding area than the first. Should the Board allow the
substitution, the use will continue as a legal nonconforming use without additional site changes.
Granting the special exception, however, will not legitimize the gravel parking lot that was installed
From a zoning perspective, restaurants are considered more intense than retail establishments. This
assumption is evidenced by the fact that less intense commercial zoning classification list retail but not
restaurant uses as permitted uses by right. Restaurant parking requirements are almost four times
higher for restaurants than for retail uses. There is also evidence that the applicant's electrical usage
has increased since the use change was made.
If the Board finds that the use will not be less detrimental than the prior use, then the special exception
should be denied. Denial will not necessarily prevent the owner from pursuing the change because he
will still have the option of bringing the property up to code.
•' ZBA Minutes October 19, 1999 Page 3 of 8
Ms. McCully presented the Board with pictures of the property .and described each picture. Ms.
McCully told the Board that some property across the street from the subject property has been rezoned
• and approved for a convenience store. Ms. McCully stated that it was her understanding after talking
to the applicant that the pending sale of the property for a convenience store may have prompted the
changes to the property.
Mr. Lewis asked if the Board did not approve the special exception what will happen. Ms. McCully
replied that there are other options available and this option is less expensive for the applicant because
he would not have to bring the property up to code. Ms. McCully told the Board if the special
exception was granted, the property would still be labeled non-conforming use. Nothing would be
legitimized. The restaurant would be allowed to occupy what was once a gas station/convenience
store. The other option for the applicant if not granted the special exception, is gain approval of a
rezoning which at this time is questionable. The new portions of the property would have to be
brought up to code. What is existing, and was at one time legal, could remain.
Dr. Bailey asked if the request was granted would the applicant be required to put up fencing 'and
lighting. Ms. McCully responded that if the special exception was granted they are not required to do
anything. They are just replacing one use for another. Dr. Bailey stated that there is nothing else the
Board could do except grant or deny. Ms. McCully responded that she did not find anything in' the
Statute or the Zoning Ordinance that would allow the Board to place a condition on the a special
exception like the Board can on place limitations on a variance.
Mr. Murphy referenced the section in the staff report, which addressed if the special exception was
granted that would not legitimize the gravel parking lot. Ms. McCully responded that when she wrote
• the staff report she was going on information that she understood from the applicant. She understood
that the gravel lot was installed after he purchased the property. The city had paving requirements
since 1986 and the property was purchased 3 years later. So any gravel lot that was installed after the
property was purchased should have come- before site plan approval and then brought into compliance
with the site plan. Ms. McCully stated that it was not until after her staff report she had talked to a
representative for the applicant and there is a possibility that there might have been some gravel
parking prior to the rules .changing as they applied to the site. Ms. McCully stated that is something
that still needs to be looked into.
Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request.
Floyd H. Manning stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Manning
stated that he bought the property in 1981. Mr. Manning handed the Board members additional photos
of the store itself. Mr. Manning told the Board that the convenience store changing to a restaurant
would have less of an impact. The typical convenience store with in and out traffic, trash, leaving
vehicles running while someone runs in to get something, etc., would be eliminated. Mr. Manning
stated that he intended to remove the pay phone that would eliminate the neighbors concerns. The gas
pumps will also be removed.
Mr. Manning read the letter to the Board that was included with his application. Mr. Manning stated
that he had spoken to area landowners and has found no one against what he is proposing. Mr.
• Manning spoke about the letter the Board received from an adjacent property owner and the original
storeowner. Their concern began when it was discovered that Mr. Manning had applied for the food
and beverage permit.
ZBA Minutes October 19, 1999 Page 4 oj8
Dr. Bailey asked Mr. Manning how he would respond to the letter, which states there are two
restrooms that are kept locked from the outside and one is non-functional. Mr. Manning replied that
• the location of the store, citizens leaving College Station or coming into College Station come in at all
hours of the day looking for a place to use the restroom. The restrooms are functional but he chooses
to lock them due to being left dirty and trashed. Mr. Manning stating that he would be more than
happy to build a fence around the area. Mr. Manning referred to a photograph showing the restroom
and how a sidewalk leads around the restrooms and he would build a privacy fence so there would be
no visual contact. Dr. Bailey asked Mr. Manning if he could make the restrooms accessible from
inside the restaurant. Mr. Manning stated that he has looked into the situation. The problem is that on
that side of the building is where the electrical supply is. Mr. Manning stated that he would much
rather have the restrooms on the inside if he could find a way to do it.
Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Manning how did he get the shared driveway. Mr. Manning replied that when he
bought the property from the Hall's, the property consisted if about three acres. When the Hall's
decided to sell the store and had it surveyed, it was divided and he got the smaller portion. In the
contract Mr. Manning stated that he was given usage of the driveway. Mr. Manning stated that the
entire driveway is on the Hall's property.
Dr. Bailey asked Mr. Manning what are the proposed hours for the restaurant. Mr. Manning replied
that right now he opens at 10:30 a.m. and closes at 8:00 p.m. In the future if he extends the hours the
very latest he would stay open is 9:00 p.m. and after the first of the year closing one day a week.
Shirley Volk, representative for Mr. Manning stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman
Alexander. Mrs. Volk told the Board that Mr. Manning did talk about requesting a rezoning of his
• property but she discouraged him from doing so after talking to city staff. City staff told her that it
would be spot zoning and they would be very hard pressed to support a rezoning at this time. Mrs.
Volk was told by city staff that a study is going to be done for this area to come up with a better land
use plan for the entire area. Mrs. Volk ended by telling the Board that Mr. Manning plans on up
grading the property.
With no one stepping forward to speak in opposition of the request Chairman Alexander closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Happ made the motion to authorize the substitute of one non-conforming use for another because
the extent of the substituted use is less detrimental to the environment than the first. Mr. Murphy
seconded the motion.
Dr. Bailey asked after the land use study is done, will this property be rezoned or will it stay as it is
now. Ms. McCully replied that several things could happen. One would be if the City Council adopts
the new land use plan for this area, certain key tracts or all tracts can be up for city initiated rezoning.
In the past it has not be done to render a use on a property non-conforming. Ms. McCully stated that
once the study is adopted and there is a new land use plan, that does not constitute zoning. So any
rezoning requests that are not city initiated would have to be initiated by the property owner.
•
ZBA Minutes October 19, 1999 Page S oj8
Dr. Bailey asked if Mr. Manning later decides to sell the property and the new owner decides to
upgrade and apply for a building permit, would they be required to up grade the parking. Ms.
McCully replied that the building permit would not trigger compliance with site development
• requirements nor review by ZBA. If the Board granted the request at this meeting and there is not an
expansion or a substitution regardless of who owns the property, the property will retain its legal
nonconforming status and any future additions or substitutions would have to come back to the Board.
Ms. McCully ended by saying that the site development requirements would be triggered if there is a
use that goes into the building that meets the zoning requirements. Then if it is more intense than the
previous use and additional parking is required, the new parking would have to meet the requirements
that are in place at that time.
Mr. Lewis asked if the Board approved the substitution, does the parking lot stay as it is now. Ms.
McCully stated that there are portions of the site that are legally non-conforming and have retained that
status. There are other areas that are not necessarily in compliance and one would be the gravel
parking lot. Once the applicant made the full change to the restaurant the non-conforming status will
be lost. Ms. McCully stated that it is her understanding that the gravel parking lot was added recently.
Whether or not the Board granted or denied the exception, city staff will discuss the gravel parking lot
and whether or not it needs to be brought up to code.
There were discussions among the Board concerning impact to the property due to traffic and about the
gravel parking lot.
The Board voted (S-0) for authorizing the special exception request.
• AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Consideration of a request for a height variance at 300 Southwest
Parkway West. Applicant is R. G. Miller Engineering, Inc.
Staff Planner Anderson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Mr. Anderson told the
Board the applicant is requesting the variance to construct a 3.5 story apartment complex. The subject
property is zoned R-4 and is a 6.76 acre tract that has a 440 foot frontage along Southwest Parkway
and extends back a depth of approximately 700 feet. It also has 420 foot of frontage along Christine
Lane. Christine Lane is a substandard road; thus access will be restricted to Southwest Parkway until
Christine Lane is upgraded. The R-4 Apartment\Medium density has a maximum height provision of
2.5 stories or 35 feet. All residential districts, except for the high-density apartment zones R-5 and R-
6, have a maximum height restriction of 2.5 stories or 35 feet. The applicant wishes to construct
apartments that meet the density requirements of an R-4 district (16 DU\AC), however, they would like
to build at a height of 3.5 stories. Thus, the applicant is requesting a variance of one (1) story to the
building height.
The applicant offers one alternative for hardship: aesthetics -loss of open area and landscape areas for
the residents. Applicant argues that it will take away from the appearance of the project and the ability
of the proposed apartment project to blend with the adjacent parkland.
The applicant states a special condition of the developer wanting to increase the landscape area
• There were discussions among the Board Members and staff concerning the surrounding tracts of land,
their zoning and density.
ZBA Minutes October 19, 1999 Page 6 oj8
Chairman Alexander opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request.
Scott Greer, representative of R. G. Miller Engineering Inc. stepped before the Board and was sworn in
• by Chairman Alexander. Mr. Greer handed the Board a copy of the proposed site. Mr. Greer told the
Board that the proposed complex will be identical to the existing University Place Apartments across
the street. The University Place Apartments are 3.5 stories. Mr. Greer told the Board that density is
not an issue for this development. Mr. Greer explained that they are proposing a development that is
12 '/2 dwelling units per acre and 3 '/2 stories. Mr. Greer told the Board even though they are allowed
by ordinance to place 16 dwelling units per acre, they are wanting to create a larger amount of
landscaping for buffer from the existing developments. Mr. Greer stated that the proposed
development would have a roof height of 37 feet.
Chairman Alexander asked Mr. Greer if he had any plans of the proposed development. Mr. Greer
approached the Board and showed the plans and elevation for the development. Mr. Greer told the
Board that this development will be condominiums for sale not to rent. Mr. Greer ended by telling the
Board that the development will have a 70 foot minimum buffer away from Southwest Parkway and
the adjoining property lines.
Robert Bradley, developer stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Alexander. Mr.
Bradley asked staff for clarification to what a half of a story is. Ms. McCully replied that has been
addressed more with single-family dwellings. Ms. McCully stated that there is not an official
definition in the Zoning Ordinance or the Building Code that she is aware of. Ms. McCully stated that
it is her understanding that it has to do with the floor area above the second floor. It would need to be
subordinate to the area on the second story. It can be used as storage or an office area. Mr. Bradley
• stated with that definition he would have to amend his request and ask fora 3 story height variance.
The proposed design incorporates no space above the ceiling of the third floor that would be habitable.
Mr. Bradley told the Board that they could build the complex without increasing the height but they
would have to flatten the roof pitch and architecturally it will not be as pleasing as steep roof pitch.
Mr. Bradley told the Board that under the present zoning they can build more units then they plan to
build. That outcome would not be aesthetically pleasing due to covering more ground, reducing green
areas increases impervious surface. Mr. Bradley ended by saying that it is believed that the taller
building will be more pleasing.
Chairman Alexander asked for anyone wanting to speak in opposition of the request. With no one
stepping forward Chairman Alexander closed the public hearing.
Mr. Happ made the motion to authorize a variance to the height variance from the terms of this
ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following conditions: the density
will remain less or equal to R-4 zoning; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the
ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: a change in design could
require a greater density than proposed; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed
crud substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: the height variance will be restricted
to 3 stories and 38 feet. Dr. Bailey seconded the motion, which passed (S-0).
•
ZBA Minutes October 19, 1999 Page 7 oj8
• ATTEST:
Staff Assistant, Deborah Grace
•
APPROVED:
<:..~.~
Chairman, David A r
• ZBA Minutes October 19, 1999 Page 8 oJ8
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Guest Register
• ~ Date ~ ~~
Name Addr
c
1. w~ e ~ 1'1/1. ~ C7 ~~ f e ill f3 <~~ ~~ ~' <~ ~--- << 4~.
~ ~~~~~~ ~
S. I~JC c L ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ L1L ~ ~ ~ ~ UU`7C,~
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
• 11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
• 24.
25.
R
ZONIIVG BOARD ~~' ADJUSTMENT
FORMI~T FOR POSI'T'IVE MOTION
Variance from Section 1S, Ordinance Number 1638.
I move to authorize a variance to the
yard (Section 8.~
lot width (Table A)
- lot depth (Table A)
minimum setback
parking requirements (Section 9)
from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to
the following special conditi
and because a strict enforcement of the pry
unnecessary hardship to this applicant being:
~~ ~~~~,a ~ ~c~
'~ cZ. C~7t GG.-C/.
ordinance would result. in
~'~~~~~~
suc at a spirit of this ordinance shall be o served and substantial justice
d e subject to the following limitations:
Motion made by ~ Date
Seconded by ~ Voting Results ~ ~i
Chair Sian 1~
YARP/638.DOC
~-
•
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTIONS
Special Exceptions -From Section 15 Ordinance 1638
I move to auth rite the '
a. ~ substitute of one non-conforming use for another because the extent of
the substituted use is less detrimen~ tal to the environment than the first.
b. enlargement of a building devoted to anon-conforming use where such
enlargement is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such
building and does not increase the area of the building devoted to a non-
conforming use more than 25% and does not prolong the life of the non-
conforming use or prevent a return of such property to a conforming
use.
•
c. reconstruction of anon-conforming structure on the lot occupied by
such structure as the cost of reconstruction is less than 60% of the
appraised value of the structure and because the reconstruction would
not prevent the return of such property to a conforming use or increase
the non-conformity.
Motion made by
Seconded by
Voting results:
`~.
~a=-~9- 99
Date
foem./plu/ootiorp/1293
-~ • (~-~ tt .~L,e~;.~ ~: ,,fit..-8~.-~
._ .
~ ~~~ ~~~
~`~
s
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
•
FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION
Variance from Section 1 S, Ordinance Number 1638.
I move to authorize a variance to the
yard (Section 8.~
_ lot width (Table A)
lot depth (Table A)
minimum setback
parking requirements (Section 9)
height variance.
•
from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to
the folloyyw~~in~~g special conditions:
~~
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result. in
unnecessary hardship to this applicant being:
6'~C~ ~-6,,.~!'~'J2~..~2~° ~~G~,,~~ `~s~3~f~~/lr%C.ar~y~.~'~.G..-, Q- ~",,1..e~=
and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice
done subject to the following limitations:
dam- ~t~ ° ~- ,~v~-~-~~ ~ ....~°~3~~
w. vF- ~- --•~
Motion made b ~~~
Seconded by
Chair Signature ~
Date ~~ ` r ~ ~` %~
is ~~~
vgxPisss.DOc
•
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSZ'NlENT
FORMAT FOR MOTIONS
APPEAL OF ZONING OFFICIAL'S IN'PERPRETATION -From Section 15.5, Ordinance
Number 1638
I move to uphold the decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Official in the
enforcement of Section ~~ Z 1,7 of this ordinance, as the decision or interpretation
meets the spirit of this ordinance and substantial justice was done.
.~ _
Motion made by ~~ Date ~ `-~ d '~ ~~
Seconded by r Voting Results ~`~
Chair Signature __ er-
• WI~i RULII~iG NOT TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OR IIV'I'ERPRETATION MADE BY
THE ZONII~TG OFFICIAL, USE THE FOLLOwII~TG FORM:
I move to interpret Section of Ordinance 1638 in the following manner:
Motion made by Date
Seconded by Voting Results
Chair Signature
• /{PINTERP.DOC
•
City of College Station
Absence Request. Form
For Elected and Appointed Officers
Name Les i i e H i l l
Request Submitted on October }s~ 1999
I will not be in attendance at the meeting of October 19, 1999
for the reason(s) specified: (Date)
• David I received a voice messa a fro
g m Les}ie Hitl saying that he
would 6e unable to attend Tuesdays meeting due to a death in the family.
He di`d say that he would attend the Wednesday SnPCial MPating
Signature ~ C 1 wS`\ Q, ~ ``
r~Op^U~ ~
.~; ~ , ~.~
~-~., r
This request shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Board one-week
i prior to meeting date.
10/12/99 16:32 $409 268 5323
10/12/99 16:06 '$409 764 3396
• ~ ,
BRtiCHEZ & GOSS ~~~ DEVELOPh1ENT SVCS f~ 002
DEyELoPMENT SVCS lQ 002
~:.:: ~ ~. ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~C~ Q. f Coltege~~~~5`tat~n~~ . . - ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ •
. ,,,~,; . Absence~Request:.Form:;;.. ,' ' . ~ ~ ~ . : ~... .. ~ . ~ .
. , ..... .
,,.- ..~ ~oF ElectEd and ~:~ipoii~ted;Oflicer~~~._.:........~ ~ ~ . '~. ...
.
~ -
r
.
... ~.Request''Subnutte~"on ~~G~~x-~' /~,~ /.~~9..' ~9 ~' ~ .
.Iwi)I~natbein;atteudanceatthemeetiagof ~~ .'.~~a~6~;.~~~~~:~:~~.::~~'9~~~~~•
..for the re~san~s) specified: ' .' ' ~ :Gate ~ ~ " . ~ .
• ~ ~ ~ ~~
. '. ~'I' .T \.• .. ~ .
' ' , .~
. 1+1. ~~
~+~ ~ ~ ' .
~~~ ~
- Toy ~~v~ ..
• This request shall be submitted to Yfie Secretary of tli~ Board one-week
prior to meeting date.
10/12/99 16:31 $409 268 5323 BRtiCHEZ & GOSS -~~~ DEVELOPMENT SVCS 0i001
~.~.
• sRUCHg, joss, TMoR~moH - ~ •• - - ~~
MERONOFF, l~f ICNEI. & ~HA1N~'f10RN~, P.C. - . •~ • ~ ~.:' ~~
4343 Carter Creek Parkway, Suite 100 , .''
i Bryan, Texas 7'7802
(409) 268-4343
(409) 26S-S323 FAX
CONFID NTIAL AND PRIVILEGED ' •.
,_.
The information contained in this facsimile is privileged and confidential information-
intended for the sole use of the addressee. If the reader of this facsimile is not the intended
redpient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the Intended redpient, ' '
you are hereby notified .that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this FAX in error, please immediately notify the person listed
below, and return the original message to the sender at the address listed above.
DATE: D~~ober• ! Z y ~ ~
TO' P. b4ra~ -raG~
COMPANY NAME: r l ~ ~ s ~,~
RE • y,12 ____
• ` e ~~~ s Q c~ ~
~~~ / ~ y
Ser/.
o~ .- c Q~;u.cc~
~~ ~ r~.s~ o~ ~~. /
~~ y .
TELECOPY NUMBER SENDING TO:_ ,--~ 7~ T -- ~ q ~
TOTAL. NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEE"~: °Z'
,...
SENT BY: ~-5
FILE NUMBER: ~ -`
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS RECEIVING THIS TELECOPY, Pi.EASE
CALL THE SENDING PARTY AT {409) 268-4343. - -~- •
'1