Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 12/15/1999MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
December 15, 1999
PRESENT:
^ tt'k-�
dl-1 �-
Rc- 1 I; 3S�
Rainer Hanold, Chairman 0 Members
Don McKinney 0
Charles A. Peters, III 0
Bobby Redwine 0
Michael Norrie 0 Alternate 1
Bud Beaty 0 Council Liaison
Steve Seese, City Planning Administrator 0 City staff
Paul Stillson, Planner II 0
Diane Parker, Recording Secretary 0
ABSENT:
John Key 0 Member
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Chairman Hanold.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Peters made a motion to approve the minutes from the November 17, 1999
meeting. Mr. Redwine seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with a
unanimous vote in favor.
III. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Recommendation to Adopt Rules and Procedures
Staff proposed that the following procedures be used when evaluating the validity of
variance requests, and processes to be used to evaluate variance requests once it has
been determined that the case qualifies for a hearing by the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1
Mr. McKinney made a motion to adopt the resolution. Mr. Peters seconded the motion.
The motion passed with a unanimous vote in favor.
A RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CITY OF WICHITA FALLS
WHEREAS, Chapter 211.008(e) requires the Board of Adjustment by majority vote to adopt rules
related to its function as related to applicable actions by the Board of Adjustment; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined by the Board of Adjustment that current rules and procedures
used by the Board of Adjustment be evaluated for effectiveness and in conformance with State law and
City Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment has carefully considered its role and responsibilities to the
public to ensure quality development; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment has determined that revised rules and procedures are
needed to maintain the responsibilities of the Board of Adjustment as defined under Appendix C, Zoning
Ordinance, of the Code of Ordinances for the City of Wichita Falls; Appendix A, Comprehensive
Subdivision Ordinance, of the Code of Ordinances for the City of Wichita Falls; and Chapter 211 of the
Texas Local Government Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF
WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, THAT:
Section 1. The following processes will be used to evaluate and perform actions related to
applications for a variance:
The Board of Adjustment will require a narrative statement demonstrating the requested variance
conforms to the following standards:
a. That special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building
involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or building in the same district.
That 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.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
d. That the granting of the variance would otherwise be in harmony with the objectives of this
Ordinance and would not confer upon the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this
Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district.
Failure by the applicant to successfully demonstrate that the above requirements have been met, by a
simple majority of the Board of Adjustment, the application for a variance shall be denied as not qualifying
to be heard by the Board of Adjustment.
Should the Board of Adjustment determine by a quorum vote that the applicant has satisfied the above
requirements for a hearing and determination by the Board of Adjustment, the Board of Adjustment shall
further evaluate the application for a variance, and make its determination based on the applicant meeting
the following requirements:
The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2
b. 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.
C. The variance will not permit an activity upon the land which is not allowed by the terms of this
Ordinance.
d. The granting of the variance:
1. Is consistent with the intent of the Ordinance; and
2. Is in harmony therewith; and
3. Will not be injurious to the neighborhood; and
4. Will not be otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
The Board of Adjustment will either approve a variance as presented; deny the variance; conditionally
approve a variance; or table a requested action pending additional information.
Section 2. The Chairperson or acting Chairperson shall use rules and procedures to govern its
actions during the consideration of a case brought before the Board of Adjustment as shown in
Attachment A herein.
Section 3. It is hereby officially found and determined that the meeting at which this Resolution
was passed by the Board of Adjustment was passed was open to the public as required by law.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 15`h day of December 1999
ATTEST:
ATTACHMENT A
CHAIRMAN
1. The Chairperson, or Acting Chairperson will:
a. Call the meeting to order;
b. Conduct a roll call; and
C. For the benefit of the public: state that determinations by the Board of Adjustment are
limited in scope as to what the Board may consider, and that the Board operates under
laws of the State of Texas and applicable ordinances of the City of Wichita Falls.
2. The Board shall, determine whether a request for a variance meets the following criteria:
a. That special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or
building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or building in the
same district; and
b. That 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; and
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant; and
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3
d. That the granting of the variance would otherwise be in harmony with the objectives of
this Ordinance and would not confer upon the applicant any special privilege that is
denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district.
3. Should the Board determine by a quorum vote that the application did warrant consideration by
the Board, the Board shall issue such decision in a finding for record and proceed with the
hearing.
4. Should the Board determine by a quorum vote that the application did not warrant consideration
by the Board, the Board shall issue such decision in a finding for record and dismiss the case as
not qualifying to be heard by the Board of Adjustment.
5. Once there is agreement to hear the case, the Chairperson, or Acting Chairperson, should:
a. Announce the case being heard by its case number; then
b. Applicant's name; then
C. Reason for the Board's hearing (administrative appeal or variance request); then
d. Nature of the request; then
e. Ask if all parties were prepared to provide testimony; then
f. Direct staff to explain what led to this hearing, nature of the complaint or reason for the
variance request, and why established procedures were unable to resolve the dispute
between an official (administrative appeal) or between ordinance requirements (variance).
The Chairperson, or Acting Chairperson shall direct staff to present the case.
Following presentation of the case, the Chairperson, or Acting Chairperson, should ask if the
applicant is present, and if so, ask the applicant to come forward.
8. The Chairperson, or Acting Chairperson, shall swear in the applicant and ask for name and
address for the record.
Following testimony by the applicant, the Chairperson, or Acting Chairperson, should ask if there
is anyone in the audience wishing to speak for the applicant's case. Testimony will follow
swearing -in and recording the name and address.
10. Following this testimony the Chairperson, or Acting Chairperson, will ask if there is anyone
wishing to speak against the case. Testimony will follow swearing -in and recording the name and
address.
11. Following all testimony, the Chairperson, or Acting Chairperson will direct staff to respond on any
issue made by the applicant or other.
12. The Chairperson, or Acting Chairperson will then solicit comments from the Board members.
13. A Board member may ask the Chairperson, or Acting Chairperson for staff, the applicant or other
to return to the podium to respond to questions.
14. The Chairperson, or Acting Chairperson will remind of previous oaths.
15. Following all questions, the Chairperson, or Acting Chairperson shall close discussions and direct
additional comments from the Board members. When no further comments, the Chairperson, or
Acting Chairperson shall ask for a vote.
NOTE: By State law, a minimum of four affirmative votes is required to approve a variance.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 4
2. V 99 -06
Request to Replat Lot 5, Block 3, Newcomb Downs
#2 Newcomb Terrace
Applicant....... ...............................
Property......... ...............................
Requested Action ..........................
Purpose ......... ...............................
.....James R. Seitz, Jr.
..... #2 Newcomb Terrace, Lot 5 Newcomb Downs, Sec. 2
.....Variance from Section 3140(2) of the Zoning Ordinance
requiring a 50 -foot minimum lot width.
......To subdivide subject property into two lots each having a
width of less than 50 feet, measured at the building limit
line.
Commentary:
The applicant is requesting a variance to divide this single lot into two lots. Each new lot will
have a lot width of less than 50 feet. The Zoning Ordinance, Section 2030 defines lot width and
lot frontage as follows:
"LOT WIDTH
The horizontal distance between the side lines of a lot measured at right angles to its depth
along a straight line parallel to the front lot line at the minimum required building setback line."
"LOT FRONTAGE
The length of the front lot line measured at the street right -of -way line."
In other words, lot width is the distance measured along the building limit line. The building limit
line is located parallel to and 25 feet back of the street right -of -way. Lot frontage on the other
hand, is the distance measured along the street right -of -way. If a lot is located on a curving
right -of -way, lot width and lot frontage most likely will not be the same distance. In a typical cul-
de -sac, a lot could have a frontage of 33 feet, and because the width is measured at the25 foot
building limit line, it could have a width of 50 feet.
The subject property is located on Newcomb Terrace cul -de -sac. The property along the cul -de-
sac was originally platted in 1966 into Lots 1 through 7, with each lot having a 20 foot building
limit line. In 1983 a replat was approved further dividing Lots 2, 3 & 4 into six lots. The owners
also requested a replat of Lot 5 into two lots. Because the proposed lot 5 -A was entirely in the
floodway, the Planning Board disapproved the plat, as the lot lacked a suitable building site.
The 1983 plat created four lots that had less than fifty -foot lot widths. Staff used the plat to
measure the existing lot widths. Measured at the approved 20 foot building limit line, the lots
ranged from approximately 37 to 40 feet wide. The applicant is now requesting a variance to
subdivide Lot 5 into two lots. According to the current flood maps, this property is no longer in
the floodway and now contains a suitable building site. Measured at the current minimum
setback of 25 feet, the two proposed lots will be wider than four of the previously approved lots,
but less than the required 50 feet. Staff estimated the lot width of the lots to be created at about
45 feet.
Qualifying Criteria:
a. That special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land,
structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands,
structures, or building in the same district.
Applicant's statement: "Four lots to the west of the subject [property] all have less than
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 5
50 feet of frontage."
Staff response: The 1983 plat created four lots with frontages of 29 feet with widths of
37 -45 feet. These lots do not conform to the currently required 50 -foot width. By
approving the plat in 1983 the Planning Board created a trend in this area of lots with
less than 50 feet in width. In the past the Board of Adjustments has considered
conditions in the neighborhood as a special condition.
b. That 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.
Applicant's statement: By not being able to complete this development in such a manner
as was originally intended on the cul -de -sac.
Staff response: This is a case where neighboring properties are enjoying the same
privilege proposed by the applicant, reduced lot widths, in a pre- zoning (1985) situation.
Here we have four adjacent lots with widths similar to the applicant's request.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of
the applicant.
Applicant's statement: "Existing Lots 3, 3A, 4 & 4A were replatted into smaller lots
approximately 20 years ago by the original developer."
Staff response: Based on information in our files, the reason that the replat of Lot 5 was
disapproved was because the property was entirely in the floodway. The flood maps
have changed since that time, due to drainage improvements beyond the control of the
applicant. The lot is no longer in the floodway.
d. That the granting of the variance would otherwise be in harmony with the
objectives of this Ordinance and would not confer upon the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in
the same district.
Applicant's statement. No special privilege is granted because other lot frontages are in
fact smaller than requested for [Lots] 5A & 5B.
Staff response: Other adjacent properties already have been granted reduced lot widths.
Staff feels that this request does qualify for a hearing by the Board.
Evaluation Criteria:
In evaluating a variance request once it has been determined by the Board that the request
qualifies to be heard by the board, the Zoning Ordinance Section 7340 requires that the
following criteria be used:
a. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest.
If this variance request were granted, it would allow existing development patterns in the
neighborhood to be extended to an adjacent lot. Staff does not feel that this variance
would be contrary to the public interest.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 6
13
C.
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.
The Board has considered conditions on adjacent lots as special conditions. In this case
the special conditions would be adjacent lots that are less than 50 feet wide.
The variance will not permit an activity upon the land which is not allowed by the
terms of the Zoning Ordinance.
The property is zoned Single Family Residentia
family detached dwellings will be constructed.
uses in this zone.
The granting of the variance:
I. The applicant has stated that single
Single family residences are permitted
Is consistent with the intent of this Ordinance;
The intent of the provision requiring minimum lot widths was to provide a suitable
space to construct a structure and prevent overcrowding. If lots are too narrow,
unbuildable lots or overcrowding may result. In this case when the lots are
subdivided, there will still be enough space to construct a dwelling of sufficient
size and setback to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood;
Is in harmony therewith;
The variance, if granted, would allow a nonconforming lot development to be
continued for two additional lots. It is important to assure a harmonious
development. If approved, the structures to be built should conform to the
existing setbacks in the neighborhood and that the new structures should be
compatible in size and value with the existing homes.
Will not be injurious to the neighborhood;
Since these lots are located on a cul -de -sac they will be seen together as a
continuation of the existing patterns of development. If these patterns are
continued, it should not be injurious to the neighborhood.
Or detrimental to the public welfare.
Granting this variance should not harm the long -term economic development of
the City or affect the public in the long -term through function, appearance or
layout.
Recommendation:
Staff feels that special conditions may exist based on the size of the lot and the conditions on
the adjacent properties. To assure a harmonious development, a condition should be added
that the structures to be built will conform to the existing setbacks in the neighborhood and that
the new structures should be compatible in size and value with the existing homes on adjacent
properties.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 7
Eleven surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Three (3) or 27.27% replied
in favor and none (0) were opposed.
Mr. Martin Litteken, engineer /surveyor for the owner, was sworn in by Chairman Hanold. He
explained that the lot was divided into two parcels. The widths of the lots are less that the
Subdivision Ordinance requirement but it is in conformance with surrounding lots.
Mr. McKinney made a motion to grant the variance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Peters.
The vote was unanimous in favor of the variance.
IV. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m.
Rainer Hanold, Chairman
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 8
Date