Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[DECLARATION OF A QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER ]

[00:00:03]

TO ORDER IT 12:01.

ON AUGUST I'M SORRY, ON DECEMBER 20TH 2023.

IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE AUGUST 16TH, 2023 MINUTES FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING? SO MOVED. I SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. ANY NAYS? MOTION CARRIES.

WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM TODAY.

[PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ACTION ITEMS ]

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE, EXCUSE ME, TO CITY OF ANGLETON, CODE OF ORDINANCES, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 211.008.

AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 28-23 AND SECTION 28-60D1C, MINIMUM LOT DEPTH TO ALLOW FOR AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING LOT TO BE DIVIDED, CREATING TWO LOTS, WITH THE REDUCTION OF THE MINIMUM LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT FROM 100FT TO A MINIMUM OF 81.7 81.75FT, AND CONSIDERATION OF EXISTING NON CONFORMING BUILDING ENCROACHMENTS.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2216 SOUTH HIGHWAY 2.88 B, ALSO KNOWN AS 2216 SOUTH VELASCO STREET, ANGLETON, TEXAS AND IS ZONED LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

WE'LL FIRST HEAR FROM STAFF, FOLLOWED BY THE APPLICANT.

AFTERNOON. UM, SO THE THIS WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED AS A PLAT.

AND THE ENGINEER, THE CITY ENGINEER, REVIEWED IT AND OFFERED THE COMMENTS, UM, ONE BEING THAT WE WOULD NEED TO GET THE VARIANCE APPROVAL FROM THE CITY BECAUSE THE EXISTING LOT IS NON-CONFORMING ON ONE SIDE, IS SHORTER THAN THE MINIMUM DEPTH REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT ZONE. UM.

THE PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY MUCH LARGER, AND IT WAS DIVIDED BY THE 288 RIGHT OF WAY AND TXDOT, AND IT CREATED THAT, UM SHALLOWER LOT DEPTH THAN WHAT WE NOW HAVE FOR THE ZONE THERE.

THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DIVIDE THE LOT FOR FAMILY.

IT MEETS ALL OF THE REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS IN THE ORDINANCES FOR THAT ZONE.

AND, UM, WE HAVE WENT THROUGH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE REQUIREMENTS, AND WE'RE ABLE TO VERIFY THAT IT MET THE REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS BEING, UM, A NOT A SELF-CREATED, UM, ISSUE. AND.

UM, WE WERE ABLE TO VERIFY THAT WE MEET ALL OF THE ZONING REGULATION STANDARDS.

AND BECAUSE OF THAT, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE COUNCIL, THE BOARD APPROVE THE VARIANCE AND, UM, THAT THE APPLICANT COMES IN AND MAKES SURE THAT ALL BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY ARE PERMITTED AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE THE BUILDING CODE, AND THAT ANY FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY THAT ARE OCCUR WOULD NEED TO CONFORM WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCES IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME.

WE ALSO HAD SOME PICTURES, UM, THAT WE ADDED IN, UM, OF THE PROPERTY SO THAT YOU COULD SEE WHAT THE SITE LOOKS LIKE.

AND IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.

I GUESS I'M NOT QUITE CLEAR WHY IS IT BEING SUBDIVIDED? THE FAMILY IS SPLITTING IT UP BETWEEN THE SIBLINGS.

THE TWO SIBLINGS? IT'S A FAMILY DIVISION.

SO IT'S OWNED BY THE TWO SIBLINGS NOW.

AND THEY'RE JUST IT'S OWNED BY THE PARENTS, AND THEY'RE GOING TO SPLIT IT AND GIFT IT APART TO EACH SIBLING? YES. SOME.

ARE THE EXISTING STRUCTURES GOING TO STAY AS THEY ARE, OR IS IT GOING TO BE NEW BUILDINGS? THEY WOULD STAY AS THEY ARE AND IF THEY ARE TORN DOWN THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO, UM, COMPLY WITH THE ZONE REGULATIONS TO REBUILD.. AT THAT TIME.

YES, MA'AM. OKAY.

AND WHAT I'M HEARING IS FOR THIS SUBDIVISION TO GO THROUGH ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IS THAT BUILDING THE BUILDING PERMITTING PROCESS FOR THE EXISTING STRUCTURES BE COMPLIED WITH.

AM I MISUNDERSTANDING?

[00:05:01]

SO THERE IS A CARPORT THAT IS EXISTING AT THE BACK OF THAT METAL BUILDING AND IT DOESN'T ENCROACH ACROSS THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT IT COMES CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN WE WOULD, UH, IN OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS.

SO WE WOULD WANT THAT TO BE REVIEWED.

UH, JUST BECAUSE IT'S THERE AND, UM, WE WOULD WANT OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL TO LOOK AT IT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T CREATE A HAZARD TYPE OF SITUATION.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, ANYTHING THAT WAS BUILT IN THE FUTURE WOULD HAVE THOSE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NOW IN EFFECT AROUND FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT.

YOU KNOW, UM, AND THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS THAT, THAT THEY'RE BASICALLY CREATING ADDITIONAL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THEMSELVES.

WELL, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS EXIST, RIGHT ALREADY.

SO EVEN IF THEY TEAR IT DOWN NOW AS IT IS, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUILD IT BACK WHERE IT IS, WHERE IT IS.

RIGHT. OKAY.

BUT I'M I GUESS I'M TALKING ABOUT NOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A DIVISION RUNNING DOWN THE MIDDLE OF IT THAT'S GOING TO HAVE LIKE LOT LINES AS WELL.

RIGHT. RIGHT.

YEAH. BUT BUT THOSE BUILDINGS ARE OFF OF THE LOT LINES BY THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT.

OKAY. AND BOTH LOTS WOULD STILL BE ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

YES, UNLESS THEY GO THROUGH A REZONING PROCESS OR SOME OTHER KIND OF AND THEY BACK UP TO SINGLE FAMILY ? THEY DO.

OKAY. AND IS THAT THE METAL STORAGE BUILDING ON WHAT IS PROPOSED IS LOT TWO.

THAT'S.

SO SEE THE THE TWO BUILDINGS IN THE BOTTOM LOT, WHICH IS LOT TWO.

THAT'S THE MIDDLE STORAGE BUILDING ON THIS SIDE.

AND THEN THE BEHIND IT IS THAT CARPORT.

OKAY. SO THE CARPORT IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.

THE METAL STORAGE BUILDING STAYS EVEN THOUGH IT'S ENCROACHING ON OUR TEN FOOT BUILDING.

THE CARPORT IS WHAT'S ENCROACHING ON THE TEN FOOT BUILD LINE.

OKAY. SO IF IT IS THERE, THEY WANT TO LOOK AT IT AND MAKE SURE IT'S NOT GOING TO FALL OVER AND DAMAGE SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY OR STRUCTURAL CONCERN WHEN IT COMES DOWN, IT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE REBUILT THERE.

OKAY. AND THEY BOTH ALREADY HAVE DRIVEWAYS.

OKAY. THE BUILDING ON ON LOT ONE IS IS A RESIDENCE OR IT LOOKS LIKE ONE. IT'S A HOME.

OKAY. IT LOOKS LIKE A HOME.

SO FOR MY OWN CLARITY.

THE VARIANCE IS NEEDED BECAUSE THIS LOT IS DOES NOT MEET THE 100 FOOT SETBACK.

AND IT DOESN'T ANY WAY, EVEN AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW.

BUT BECAUSE OF SUBDIVIDING, THEY HAVE TO COME TO US FOR A VARIANCE FOR THESE TWO PROPOSED LOTS BEFORE THEY CAN BE PLOTTED THAT WAY.

SO THE BOTTOM LOT WOULD MEET COMPLIANCE.

BUT BECAUSE THAT SHORT EDGE, WHICH IS NON-CONFORMING DEPTH, THAT NEW LOT THAT'S BEING CREATED BY LOT DIVISION, RIGHT, OKAY.

IS IS WHERE WE'RE COMING IN SAYING, OKAY, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT DEPTH.

AND WE NEED IT'S LIKE 80 SOME FEET AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE 100.

OKAY, OKAY.

ATTEMPTED TO PROCESS THIS UNDER THE PLANNING PROCESS, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT'S BECAUSE OF THE ZONING SECTION THAT WE WERE ASKED TO TAKE IT BEFORE THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS.

SO THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT.

OKAY. THAT MAKES SENSE NOW OKAY.

THANK YOU. I'M DONE GRILLING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

CAPTAIN IS HERE. IF YOU ALL HAD ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.

AND I DO BELIEVE THERE'S OTHERS THAT APPEARED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES.

SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST.

OH, I NEED TO OPEN THAT NOW.

I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO MOVED.

I SECOND. SO I HAVE ONE SIGNED SHEET FOR BEN NOLAN.

YEAH. MY QUESTION IS.

Y'ALL TALKING ABOUT THAT AWNING IN THE BACK?

[00:10:02]

THAT'S UNDERNEATH POWER LINE.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO TALK ABOUT.

THERE'S A 20 FOOT EASEMENT ON THAT BACK FENCE LINE THAT BACKS UP TEN ON MINE AND TEN ON THE OTHER, THAT RUNS THAT WHOLE LENGTH OF THAT BEHIND ALL THOSE HOUSES DOWN THAT WHOLE BLOCK BACK THERE.

SO Y'ALL WANT TO TAKE THE TEN FOOT FROM BEHIND THAT AND PUT IT UP TO OUR SIDE? OR WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO? SO. IF A BUILDING IS WITHIN THE AREA THAT YOU DESCRIBED, WE WOULD BASICALLY HAVE TO VERIFY THAT THERE IS A LEGAL EASEMENT THERE, BECAUSE WE'RE ASKING THEM TO APPLY FOR THE PERMIT THAT WE DON'T HAVE ON FILE.

IT WILL GET VETTED BY, YOU KNOW, THOSE AGENCIES THAT MIGHT HAVE AN EASEMENT.

UM, THE FOLKS THAT DID THE SURVEY, I'M NOT AWARE OF AN EASEMENT OF UTILITY EASEMENT BEING THERE.

THAT'S ON THE DEED. I'M SORRY.

IT'S ON THE DEEDS.

THAT'S WHAT WE'LL VERIFY, IS WHAT I'M SAYING THROUGH THE PERMIT PROCESS.

NOW, THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER THING IF ANOTHER ENTITY CAME AND SAID, WE OWN THE EASEMENT AND WE WANT TO REMOVE, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT.

UM, BUT THAT WILL BE DISCOVERED DURING THE PERMIT PROCESS.

OKAY. THAT'S THE INFORMATION WE HAVE TODAY FOR MY PROPERTY.

I'M SORRY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE ANOTHER TEN TO GET THAT 20 FOOT.

RIGHT. WE WOULD HAVE POINTED OUT ANY ENCROACHMENTS ON ANY OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES THIS AFTERNOON, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD NOT ALLOW.

AS FOR THEM TO HAVE A STRUCTURE THAT WAS ENCROACHING ON ANOTHER PERSON'S PROPERTY.

YEAH, BUT NO, I'M ON THE STRUCTURE THAT'S JUST ON UNDERNEATH THE POWER LINES.

WHAT I'M GETTING. THAT'S THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION.

ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I HAD.

THANK. I'M SORRY.

THE APPLICANT WANT TO SPEAK? NO. I'M GOOD.

DID WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

WE NOW HAVE BOARD DELIBERATION AND DISCUSSION.

SO I HAVE TO ADMIT I'M A BIT CONFUSED.

WE'RE DOING AN ADJUSTMENT ON THE FRONT EASEMENT.

WE'RE NOT ADJUSTING ANY EASEMENTS.

NO, ALL WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE APPROVING A VARIANCE.

THEY'RE TAKING ONE BIG LOT THAT'S KIND OF FUNKY SHAPED, DIVIDING IT IN TWO.

BUT THE LOT ONE DOES NOT MEET THE 100 FOOT LOT LENGTH.

AND WE'RE FROM JUST THE DEPTH OF THE LOT.

YEAH. FRONT TO BACK ALL THE WHOLE WAY.

SO WE'RE, UH, ENTERTAINING APPROVING A VARIANCE THAT IT'S OKAY THAT IT'S NOT 100FT BECAUSE OF THE SHAPE OF THE LOT.

I'VE GOT 100. THAT'S WHY I WAS CONFUSED, BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THE SETBACK IS WHAT I WAS THINKING.

NO. SEVEN.

NINE. OKAY. THAT MAKES MUCH MORE SENSE.

YES. YEAH.

THAT LOT ONE IS 107FT DEEP ON ONE SIDE, BUT NOT ON THE OTHER.

RIGHT. BECAUSE IT'S.

IT'S OKAY.

YEAH. OKAY.

YEAH. MMHMM.

SO IF THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CONSIDER THE VARIANCE.

UM, I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AS NOTED AND FINDINGS OF FACT, AND CONDITIONALLY APPROVED THE PLAT VARIANCE TO SECTION 28, - 23 AND SECTION 2860 D1C TO ALLOW FOR DIVISION OF AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING LOT WITH A REDUCED DEPTH, SUBJECT TO FINAL ENGINEERING APPROVAL. CAN I GET A SECOND? ONE SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? UH, JUST FOR MY OWN CLARITY'S SAKE, THE.

JANEY, YOUR MOTION IS THAT CONDITIONED ON STAFF'S REVISED RECOMMENDATION BEING MET.

YES. YOU DON'T MIND? UM. OH, THE REVISED RECOMMENDATION? YES. OKAY. REVISED RECOMMENDATIONS.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT APPROVE THE OROZCO VILLA MINOR SUBDIVISION REQUESTED VARIANCE TO SECTION 28-23 AND SECTION 28-61 C RECOGNIZING THE EXISTING NON CONFORMING STATUS, CONDITIONED ON THE FOLLOWING.

NUMBER ONE, THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL, UPON THIS APPROVAL, APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR ANY UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES TO BE REVIEWED FOR FULL BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE BY THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL AND NUMBER TWO, THAT NO FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHALL OCCUR ABSENT THE APPROPRIATE BUILDING DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT EXISTING USE IS PERMITTED TO REMAIN AS IS, AND ALL FUTURE IMPROVED STRUCTURES ARE REQUIRED TO CONFORM WITH THE ZONING

[00:15:06]

ORDINANCES IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME.

GIVEN THAT THAT IS PART OF YOUR MOTION, I..

ALL IN FAVOR? OH, THAT WAS DISCUSSION.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? SO THE MOTION CARRIES TO ACCEPT THE VARIANCE.

THERE'S NO FURTHER BUSINESS.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

SECOND.

MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:16.

THANK YOU ALL AND HAPPY HOLIDAYS.

MERRY CHRISTMAS.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.