Loading...
03/01/2022 MinutesSPECIAL MEETING MINUTES CITY OF PARIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF PARIS - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM PARIS TEXAS TUESDAY MARCH 1 2022 12:00 O'CLOCK P.M. 1. The Board ofAdjustment meeting was called to order by RuthAnn Alsobrook at 12: 00 p. m. The following members were present: RuthAnn Alsobrook, Larry Walker, William Sanders, Chris Fitzgerald, Jerry Haning and David Hamilton. Also present were Andrew Mack, Stephanie Harris, Robert Vine, Mayor Pro Tem Reginald Hughes and concerned citizens. 2. Approval of minutes from previous meeting. (February 1, 2022) Motion was made by William Sanders, seconded by Larry Walker to approve minutes for the February 1, 2022 meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Public hearing to consider and take action on the petition of Sandra Munn regarding a variance from the City of Paris Fence Ordinance, Section 4.11.003 (a) (7) (F), on Lot 16-A, City Block 159, being located at 1110 SE 3rd Street. The applicant has illegally installed a fence consisting of sheet metal requiring a prohibited material variance. Andrew Mack, Director of Planning & Community Development, presents case to the board. Andrew explains that though the ordinance has recently changed to waive the permit requirement for fences 7' or less, it does not waive the material requirement. Lastly, Andrew states that City staff recommends denial based upon the staff recommended findings presented in the staff report. Ms. Alsobrook declared the public hearing open. There was discussion amongst the board and Andrew Mack in reference to the fencing ordinance and permit requirements. Sandra Munn of 1110 SE 3`d St, states that while driving around town she saw a similar fence and liked the look of the material, so she sought out a contractor from Sulphur Springs to build a fence. When the contractor was hired, she asked if additional money would be required for the permit to which he had told her that no permit would be required; she then did not think any further about the fence and whether or not the material was approved. Ms. Munn hopes to keep her fence to protect her property and her dogs from the neighbor that shoots at them. Lastly, Ms. Munn proposes the option of a mesh material to cover the fence so you cannot see that it is metal. There was further discussion amongst the board, applicant and Mr. Mack about the fence material, proposed mesh material and other options of making the fence compliant. After verifying in the ordinance, Mr. Mack determines that the mesh is not an approvable material. Motion was made by RuthAnn Alsobrook, seconded by Larry Walker to excuse herself from the rest of the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Motion was made by Larry Walker, seconded by William Sanders to bring alternate David Hamilton on to the board for the remainder of the meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Stephanie Harris, City attorney, states for the record that Mr. Hamilton has been present for the whole meeting and heard all the proceedings up to this point. There was discussion amongst the board and applicant of whether or not there is a hardship. Andrew Mack makes note of the input forms submitted: Cheri Bedford of 929 SE Yd St, in opposition. Hugh Michael King of 801, 757 and 746 Church St, in opposition. David and Mary Schutte of 1031 S Church St, in opposition. Roger King of 1029 SE 3rd St, in favor. Randy Hider of 190 E Long Ave, in opposition. Mr. Walker declared the public hearing closed. Motion was made by Chris Fitzgerald, seconded by William Sanders to deny the variance to the City of Paris Fence Ordinance 4.11.003(a)(7)(F) based on the following staff recommended findings of fact. Motion carried 5-0. Staff Recommended Findings of Fact: 1. The request for variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of Fence Ordinance No. 2021-044, as amended, and does not continue to protect surrounding properties from any negative impacts. 2. The denial of the request to permit the fence with prohibited materials will not prevent the reasonable use of the property for the residence because the materials can be replaced with a fencing material that conforms to the ordinance requirements. 3. There are no special or unique condition(s) of restricted area, shape, topography, or physical features that exist on the subject parcel of land, which are not applicable to other parcels of land in the same zoning district, and which cause unusual and practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the use of a compliant fence material allowed by the ordinance with the provisions sought here to be varied. 4. The hardship sought to be avoided is the result of (a) the applicant's own actions (self- imposed or self-created), and (b) the applicant has not stated that there is an economic or financial hardship for the use of an approved material which alone, should not be justification for approval of the variance. 5. The provisions of Fence Ordinance No. 2021-044 and its amendments, that are sought to be varied with an unimproved fence material, do not deprive the applicant of reasonable rights to use the property that are commonly enjoyed by other properties in residential areas which are required to comply with these ordinance provisions. 4. Public hearing to consider and take action on the petition of Doreen Ruthart of Ron Doe Homes, on behalf of Charlotte Edwards, regarding a variance to the City of Paris Zoning Ordinance Area Regulations, Section 9-601 on Lot 2' of 2 & WI/2 of 3, Block 2, of Tudor Addition, being located at 724 NE 10th Street. The applicant is constructing a single-family home as part of the HOME Program at 724 NE 10th Street. When the Form Board Survey was done, it was discovered that the forms had been set with a 47" side yard on the northern side of the property instead of the minimum required of 5'. The applicant is requesting a 5" variance to the minimum 5' side yard setback to allow the 47" side yard to remain. Andrew Mack, Director of Planning & Community Development, presents case to the board. Mr. Mack states that this variance is a product of miss -communication between the general contractor, subcontractors, and City and was clearly unintentional. Lastly, Mr. Mack states that it would be unnecessary and costly to correct the setback since it is only a few inches and therefore the City staff recommends approval. Mr. Walker declared the public hearing open. Doreen Ruthart of 420 PR 43375, and applicant states that Mr. Mack presented the case accurately and that is was merely a miss -communication of all parties. Ms. Ruthart also states that before pouring, they did attempt to measure the setback and came up with 5' 2", but when the survey came back it showed only 4' 7". There was further discussion between the board, applicant and City staff on the proper procedures and chain of events leading up to the concrete being poured. Andrew Mack makes note of the input form submitted: Charlotte Edwards of 724 NE l Oth St, in favor. Mr. Walker declared the public hearing closed. Motion was made by William Sanders, seconded by David Hamilton to approve the 5" variance to Section 9-601 of the Area Regulations to allow the side yard to remain at 47" vs the required 5' setback based on the following staff recommended findings of fact. Motion carried 5-0. Staff Recommended Findin is of Fact: Staff recommends approval of the variance, based upon the following findings of fact: 1. The request for variance is harmony with the general purposes and intent of Zoning Ordinance No. 1710, as amended, and will not negatively impact the protection for the adjacent surrounding property. 2. The request is to permit the reconstruction of a residence is not applicable with regard to a non -conforming use due to it being permitted by right in the SF -2 District. There was a previous structure recently demolished on the property under the City's Home Program and it was built up to the property line. The new setback of 4'-7" to the south side yard setback will lessen the `degree of non -conformity' with regard to side yard setback which serves to improve the adjacent neighboring condition of the lot. 3. There are special or unique conditions of restricted area and physical feature for the new slab that was constructed prior to the form board survey now existing on the subject parcel of land. This is not generally applicable to other parcels of land in the same zoning district. This has caused an unusual and practical difficulty to be in compliance with the provisions sought here to be varied due to general contractor not fully in sync with its sub -contractors schedules and thereby resulting in an unintentional result of not meeting the side yard setback by 5". 4. The hardship sought to be avoided is the result of (a) the applicant's own actions (self- imposed or self-created although unintentional), and (b) an economic or financial hardship would result from being required to move the new foundation by 5". 5. The provisions of Zoning Ordinance No. 1710, and its amendments, that are sought to be varied would deprive the applicant of the normal rights to use the property that is commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same SF -2 Zoning District without approval and not being required to fully comply with the side yard setback ordinance provisions. 5. Adjournment. APPROVED THE 5�' DAY OF APRIL, 2022. Chairperson