Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 09/20/2023 MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
September 20, 2023
PRESENT:
Brady Eniow ♦Alternate#2
Jose Garcia •Alternate#1
Kerry Maroney *Member
Mark McBurnett • SAFB Ex•Qfficio
Tom Taylor * Member
Tyson Traw, Chairperson ♦cha}rperson
David Waddell ♦Member
Councilor Michael Smith • Liaison
James McKechnie, Deputy City Attorney *city Staff
Terry Floyd, Development Services Director ♦city Staff
Fabian Medellin, ACIP Planning Manager ♦city Staff
Christal Cates, Development Services Assist. ♦ City Staff
ABSENT:
Rick Hernandez •Alternate#4
Steven Young ♦Member
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Tyson Traw called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. (Members where sworn in
before start of meeting)
II. ROLL CALL
Chairman Traw introduced the board of adjustment members.
III. MINUTES
Mr. Jose Garcia made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 18, 2020,
Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting (ZBOA). Mr. David Waddell seconded. The vote
carried unanimously 5-0.
IV. REGULAR AGENDA
Case 23-01 1801 Britain Street
Request to allow a reduction in the required lot width minimum in a Single Family-2
(SF-2) zoning district.
Board of Adjustment 2 September 20, 2023
Mr. Fabian Medellin presented the case and stated staff had been working with the
applicant, Corlett, Probst & Boyd, along with the owner of the property, Habitat for
Humanity of Wichita Falls, on the division of the property from one lot, into two lots.
The owner recently purchased the property, assuming it was a double residential lot
that had been combined by a previous owner and could be divided back into two
residential lots. The owner contracted Corlett, Probst & Boyd to replat the properties,
who then reached out to City staff regarding the property having only 90ft. of
frontage.
The subject property is located at 1801 Britain Street, on the southwest corner of
Avenue H and Britain Street and one block to the east of Wichita Falls High School.
Mr. Medellin stated the original Jackson and Roberts plat that divided the land and
dedicated the streets was done in 1913. When that was done, 270ft. of frontage,
between Avenue H to Avenue I consisted of 5 lots, centered on a 60ft. lot and going
outwards, reducing the lot sizes to 55ft., then 50ft. When homes were constructed
12 years later, the original lot lines that were subdivided were not followed. Instead
of five homes constructed, one per lot, there were 6 homes built. The lots legally by
deed are still referred to as their original division; however, it is not a complete lot,
only portions of their original division. Mr. Medellin showed the board an aerial view
of the properties, stating they were divided into 45ft. width lots when construction
began, which matched the lots directly across the street in the M. D. Walker
subdivision whose lots were originally divided into 45ft. width lots.
Subject property photos show the characteristics of the neighborhood and other lots
platted similarly to the subject property. Mr. Medellin stated the subdivision
regulations dictate the division of land; however, it refers to the zoning ordinance for
specific guidelines. Mr. Medellin advised the zoning ordinance allows for variations
of lot sizes between districts and uses and noted the standard widths are 50' for the
majority of the city's zoning districts.
Mr. Medellin stated staff notified 28 property owners within the 200ft. notification
area and also posted a sign at the subject property. A total of three responses were
received, two in favor of this petition and one against.
Mr. Medellin advised the variance was presented in two phases, the first being the
review of the qualifying criteria. By ordinance, the petition must meet certain criteria
to be considered in phase II. The questions asked and responses are listed below.
1. State special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land,
structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other land,
structures, or building in the same district.
Applicants statement: Land was previously two lots. It was platted into one lot in
2020 by the previous owner.
Board of Adjustment 3 September 20, 2023
Mr. Medellin stated staff agreed that special conditions and circumstances exist
at this property within the district. Prior to the lot re-platting, each lot was 45' wide
and below the current lot width requirement of 50'.
2. Demonstrate that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from
the actions of the applicant.
Applicants statement: Previous owner re-platted property into one lot.
Staff had verified that the conditions and circumstances surrounding this request
for a variance are not the result of the applicant's actions. The development of
the residences conflicting with the original lot layout has created special
conditions where properties are crossing original lot lines and are below their
intended lot widths.
3. State how a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would
deprive the applicant of a right commonly enjoyed by other properties in the
same district under the terms of this Ordinance.
Applicants statement: Property is currently too large for a typical residential
development.
Mr. Medellin advised a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Ordinance
would have not allowed the current neighborhood configuration, and it's the
owner's intent to return it to such. The width available would only allow for a
single lot. If the new lot were created with a minimum of 50', the result would be
a remainder 40' lot, by ordinance, the City could not provide services to or allow
a permit for construction on the "illegal" lot.
4. State how granting the variance would be in harmony with the objectives of the
Ordinance and would not confer upon the applicant any special privilege, which
is denied by the Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same
district.
Applicant's statement: Proposed lot division matches how the property was
originally platted and matches the lot sizes in the neighborhood.
Mr. Medellin stated the variance would only grant privileges currently exercised
by the surrounding properties with the allowed continuation of lots under the
required width. The subdivisions and zoning ordinance intents will be preserved
by continuing the orderly development within an original neighborhood of Wichita
Falls
Chairman Traw asked if there were any comments from the public. With no
comments, Mr. Traw asked if the owner or applicant would like to make a statement.
Mr. Will Goodner, the acting representative for the property owner, Habitat for
Humanity of Wichita Falls, stated they needed the land divided to be able to serve
more citizens in the community. By approving the division of land would be providing
homes to two additional families in Wichita Falls.
Board of Adjustment 4 September 20, 2023
Mr. David Waddell made a motion to approve the qualifying criteria. Mr. Tom Taylor
seconded the motion which passed unanimously with a vote of 5-0.
The 2nd phase of this variance is the evaluation criteria that is reviewed by staff
listed below:
1. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest.
2. Special conditions exist, other than financial hardship alone, whereby a literal
enforcement of the terms of the Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship to
the owner of the land.
3. The variance will not permit an activity upon the land, which is not allowed by the
terms of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The granting of the variance:
• Is consistent with the intent of this Ordinance;
• Is in harmony therewith; and
• Will not be injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public
welfare.
Mr. Medellin stated rather than split the lot into two 45ft. lots, staff wanted to limit the
number of variations. The corner lot which would be known as lot 9B, has a side
building limit line of 15ft., and with having a 45ft. frontage, it would considerably
reduce the building envelope. However, by giving lot 9B a 50ft. frontage and lot 9C
40ft. frontage, it gives the two lots similar building envelopes for development.
Chairman Traw asked if the frontage lot proposals were decided by staff or the
applicant. Mr. Medellin stated the applicant originally presented the frontage
breakdown for staff, and upon evaluating the subject property, agreed that was the
best path to present to the Board. Mr. Brady Enlow asked, if the Board approved
this petition, if it would set a precedence for other future cases. Mr. James
McKechnie stated it would not as every case presented to the Board is different and
decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. Chairman Traw stated he could see
the proposal was in harmony with the neighborhood.
With no further questions or comments from the public or the Board, Mr. Kerry
Maroney made a motion to approve the variance as presented. Mr. Jose Garcia
seconded the motion which passed unanimously with a vote of 5-0.
V. ADJOURN
Chairman Traw adjourned the Board at 1:56 p.m.
- 2 5
11 yson Traw, Chairman Date
Board of Adjustment 5 September 20,2023
---Vi <: .)—.--- /HS- - )'-
Terry , Director of Development Services Date