Loading...
08/25/2015 MINUTESMINUTES SPECIAL MEETING CITY OF PARIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF PARIS - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS PARIS, TEXAS TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2015 5:30 O'CLOCK P.M. The Board of Adjustment meeting was called to order by Jerry Haning, Vice - Chairman at 5:30 p.m. A. The following members were present: Jerry Haning, Marilyn Smith, Louise Hagood and Deanna Manning B. The following members were absent: David Hamilton C. Also present was Kent McIlyar, City Attorney, Sue Lancaster, City Council; Alan Efrussy, Planning Manager, Ashley Fendley, City Staff; Stephen Walker, Moore Law Firm; Ben Glick, Tri-State Iron & Metal; and concerned citizens. 2. Property located at 4250 Lamar Avenue, Paris, Texas. a. Consideration of Mr. Ben Glick's appeal of February 10, 2015decision of the City Building Official revoking the building permit for Lot 2, Block B of Morningside North #2 Subdivision, being located at 4250 Lamar Avenue, Paris, Lamar County, Texas. Jerry Haning, Vice Chairman stated if there's anyone here to speak in favor of Mr. Glick's appeal, you can do so at this time. Steve Walker, Moore Law Firm spoke on behalf of Ben Glick and Tri-State Iron & Metal. We have made an appeal to the Board of Adjustments related to Mr. Glick's property at 4250 Lamar Avenue. Last summer, Mr. Glick wanted to consider bringing his business, a recycling gathering facility to the City of Paris. Mr. Glick took the steps and found this property that he felt like was in a good location for his business. Mr. Glick then started by contacting the City of Paris to determine whether or not it would be an appropriate location to place his business in Paris, Texas. Mr. Glick sent the City a very detailed proposal of what the business would entail and the look of the facility. Mr. Glick then received a letter back from the City informing him that, in fact, the business was within the zoning for that location and that it would be an appropriate site for his business. Relying upon that, Mr. Glick went on and bought the property for the purpose of putting in his business. Over the next six months, he spent a great deal of time, energy and money developing that location through site plans, and work with contractors. He even hired an employee to manage the site, and basically incurred a great deal of business expense preparing to put this business in the location that the City told him would be appropriate. In January, Mr. Glick applied for a building permit, following through with the plans that he had been making for the previous six months. He then received his building permit from the City of Paris and had his contractor begin construction of the facility. Mr. Walker stated he would assume you're familiar with the issue that people became unhappy with the fact that Mr. Glick was building this recycling center in this location. Mr. Walker stated he knows many of the people here have a very strong opinion about this issue. Basically, as a result of political process, the city council ended up issuing a stop -work permit and rescinding the building permit, basically advising that this business could not be located on this piece of property. My client, Mr. Glick, now cannot put his business there. He has had months and months of delays, a great deal of financial loss. So we are here, in an effort to protect his interest, by moving forward to collect damages from the City for wrongfully giving him a permit that they now say they should have never given him, revoking that permit, preventing him from continuing work, and costing him a great deal of money. Mr. Walker stated he doesn't know if the board is aware but before an individual can sue a city for damages, they have to exhaust their administrative remedies. So this is why we are here today, we are attempting to exhaust our administrative remedy with the City by filing an appeal with the Board of Adjustments. Mr. Walker then stated the Mr. McIlyar has indicated to me in our office on numerous occasions that he does not believe that this board has the power to grant a variance or to exercise its authority to allow Mr. Glick to build his building on this property. Mr. Walker further stated that he asked Mr. McIlyar if he would be willing to agree that this board could not provide a remedy to my client so that we didn't have to waste everybody's time tonight, and we could proceed with our lawsuit so everything could move forward without us having to go through this process. He indicated that he could not do so, that he believed that we did have to go through this process, and so here we are. My client would obviously like to build the building as he originally planned. We're asking for you to exercise your authority, whether it's by granting a variance, overruling the decision of the City officials that rescinded and revoked the building permit, but we're asking that he be allowed to build his business as he had originally informed the City back in the summer of last year, and that's why we're here. Mr. Walker stated he assumes you're going to hear from Mr. McIlyar that you can't do that, which you shouldn't do that, and we are certainly not going to be surprised if that ends up being your answer tonight. We believe that Mr. Glick basically has been done a great wrong and this is our last opportunity through the City to have that righted without the need of a lawsuit. It does not appear that Mr. Glick and the City is going to be able to come to some kind of resolution that's going to prevent that from happening. So with that, Mr. Walker stated he doesn't have anything more to say other than he would be happy to answer any questions. He believes everything that you need is in the packet that you have. It has all the letters from the City saying that business is okay to go on this property. It has the stop -work permit. It has the opinion of Shawn Napier, the engineer of the City as to and what he thinks you need to do. So Mr. Walker believes that the board has the information. So we're just here respectfully asking that this board exercise your power to rectify the situation. Does anybody have any questions or any comments that you need to make to me? If not, then I will sit down. Jerry Harting stated is there anyone else to speak in favor or for Mr. Glick? No response. Is there anyone from the City to speak against the appeal? Kent McIlyar stated Mr. Chairman (Jerry Haning), if he can just share a couple of things with the Board of Adjustment tonight about the reason that this case is here. Mr. McIlyar stated just to clarify any person who is aggrieved by a decision of an administrative official of the City of Paris has a right to appeal that decision to the Board of Adjustment. This is under Section 16 of the Paris city zoning ordinance and also under Section 221 of the local government code. In this instance, the appeal was the decision to revoke the permit, the building permit held by Mr. Glick. That decision was made, rendered by the chief building official Joey Sleeper on February 10, 2015. That is the decision being appealed. They also filed a variance request, a request for variance, which is also a little unusual. Mr. McIlyar stated he believes that you are probably more familiar with seeing variance requests for builders that come before the board with odd - shaped lots that might be a little too narrow or its not deep enough, setback requirements or the width requirements contained in the requirements of zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance allows them to come before the Board of Adjustments ask for a variance of one foot, two feet, five feet, whatever it is, so that we can build this structure on the property. In this instance, the applicant, Mr. Glick has filed for a variance which appears to be that he's seeking a use variance. It's really up to Mr. Glick and his legal counsel to put on their case and convince you why they're entitled to that use variance. It is an unusual request. Mr. McIlyar stated he believes under our City's zoning ordinance that only the planning and zoning commission can change the zoning use chart and can make a decision to rezone a property, along with the city council. The city council has the final vote on rezoning a property. Alan Efrussy stated that's correct, Mr. McIlyar, and that's generally the zoning practice across the country. Kent McIlyar stated this is Mr. Alan Efrussy. He's the planning manager for the City of Paris. Alan Efrussy stated he agrees with what Mr. McIlyar said. Typically, across the country, when there is a zoning change either for a new use or modifying a use in the zoning ordinance, taking it out, making it permitted, not permitted, or a special -use permit, what typically happens is the staff makes a recommendation. Then the public hearing process goes before the planning and zoning commission, with proper notification. Then there's an advertisement in the paper or communication of general public discourse indicating that city council will also hold a public hearing, then by ordinance if city council votes. The city council will have an ordinance prepared, and then the use goes into the zoning ordinance. The council could deny, adjust, or make it a special- use permit. So essentially what Mr. McIlyar said is correct. That's the correct decision. Steve Walker stated can I respond? Kent McIlyar stated yes, sir. Steve Walker stated the problem with saying this should be something that planning and zoning decides, is the fact that my client didn't have the opportunity. The council made a motion and voted at a council meeting to decide not to send this case back to planning and zoning and made the decision themselves to revoke the permit. The council also made a finding that the property doesn't fit within commercial -zoned property use. So this is the only remedy to come before you today. Mr. Walker stated he hasn't seen anything in the charter or in the zoning ordinances that say that the Board of Adjustments cannot grant a use variance. The reality is there was an interpretation made that it doesn't fall within commercial. It's not that were asking for a use variance. It's just that the city council decided this wasn't a commercial use and therefore it can't be on a commercially zoned piece of property. This is a recycling collection station not a recycling location where materials are going to be recycled not grinded or stripped or anything like that. Materials are going to be collected here. This is a commercial area that is next door to a car wash that is across the street from a gas station, which is next to another car wash that is next to Petco which are commercial businesses in the same location. Mr. Walker further stated Mr. Efrussy, with all due respect, says this ought to be the kind of thing that should be interpreted by staff. Well the staff did make an interpretation originally and said it was allowed and issued a building permit. It was only when it got political that the city staff and city council decided that this was not an appropriate type building to be on the location. We're here asking that you allow this property to be built on this location. It's a commercially zoned piece of property and this is a commercial business. It does involve semi - trucks coming in two or three times a day to make collections. Mr. Walker stated he assumes semi - trucks pull into Petco and delivers merchandise. Mr. Walker stated he knows the neighbors don't want this business in their neighborhood and they're all here tonight, but we're asking the board to do what the city staff was going to do until this became a political issue. We didn't need a use variance until political action took place and we had our building permit rescinded. So to the extent that's what it does require, then we're asking for it. Mr. Walker stated he doesn't know that it's not just an interpretation that this is a commercial business, and it can go on a commercially zoned piece of property just like all the other commercial businesses in the area. There's also a storage unit right outside the Morningside entrance. Mr. Walker stated he just wanted to respond to the idea that this board doesn't have the authority or power to do that. He doesn't believe that the city charter or that the zoning ordinances make that affirmative statement anywhere that he could find. Mr. Walker would assume the city is not in a regular habit of issuing people building permits, stating it's okay to build a building, and then after they start construction revoking that permit and making them stop. Mr. Walker stated he believes that it is an unusual situation and certainly may require an unusual process. Thank you. Louise Hagood stated she has a question for Mr. Walker. Does Tri-State have any other depot collection centers if so what was the process you went through? Ben Glick stated we're a third - generation family business. We've been in the same location since 1947. Mr. Glick further stated he can't speak to that process. The only other collection facility we have is also our processing facility, and that's on approximately 22 acres in Texarkana, Arkansas. Louise Hagood stated 22 acres as opposed to 1.2 acres in this case? Ben Glick stated yes ma'am. Bear in mind that that's also our processing facility, so it requires a much larger footprint. Louise Hagood stated her question was if you are in other cities, did you not go through planning and zoning and the council in order to get your permit to build? Ben Glick stated they don't have other collection stations just the main facility. Steve Walker stated they just have one in Texarkana, but it's also the same location where they have their processing. Louise Hagood asked I thought you told me you had others in other cities. Ben Glick stated no ma'am, I am sorry for the misunderstanding. This would be our first satellite location. Alan Efrussy stated he just wanted to clarify something very briefly. Mr. Efrussy stated that he believes what himself and Mr. McIlyar were talking about was changing or adding the use of the zoning ordinance. With all due respect, the Board of Adjustment doesn't have that legal authority. When we are talking about the staff making a recommendation, we were talking about a use that we thought was appropriate in the district that already existed. Kent McIlyar asked under the City of Paris zoning ordinance, does that allow a metal recycling collection center. Alan Efrussy stated let me answer the questions this way. The term "metal recycling collection center" is not in the zoning ordinance. What himself and the staff did was determine based on elements of the development as described to us by the Glick representative, that would fit in the commercial district. Alan Efrussy further stated he made a mistake and he feels a major responsibility for this as the planning manager, and the staff asked him about the zoning and he believed it was appropriate. We collectively sat together with the Glick representatives, but he had a major role in making that determination. That term is not in the zoning ordinance. The appropriate action that should have taken place is we should have gone before the planning and zoning commission and then the council and had them make a decision as to whether the use is appropriate in the City of Paris. Kent McIlyar asked does the board have any questions for Mr. Efrussy. No response. Jerry Haning stated Mr. Walker, this is a very unusual request. He sat on this board for two and a half years, and we've had pretty simple cases. Most things we deal with contractors on five -foot variances. Mr. Haning stated he doesn't want to make a decision on this because he doesn't believe it's this boards place. If the board doesn't make a decision on this, it will just be tabled and no vote will take place. Kent McIlyar stated the board has two issues before them. The board has 2.a., which is the appeal of the building official's decision revoking the building permit for Lot 2, Block B of Morningside North 2 Subdivision, at 4250 Lamar Avenue. The board needs to vote on this issue. The board also needs a motion and a vote on the Glick's application for a variance under 2.b. in your agenda. Both of these actions under City Zoning Ordinance Sectionl6, it states that the concurring vote of four members of the Board of Adjustments shall be necessary to revise any administrative official, or to decide in favor of the applicant on any matter upon which it is required to pass under this ordinance or to effect any variance in said ordinance. So both items need separate motions and votes. Steve Walker stated Mr. Haning, just to speak on that, he says on behalf of my client, we do need a decision, because a non - decision or a tabling leaves my client in further limbo. He doesn't know if the board is aware, but this has been months just to get here because there were issues with new board members and some being out of town. We're now six months past the time the building permit stopped, and so we do need a decision. Obviously we've asked the board to decide to grant the appeal. If you choose not to grant the appeal, then that at least clears the way for my client to take legal action that he needs to do in order to protect his business interest and to recover losses that he's experienced because of this process. Mr. Walker further stated he will say that we do not want there to not be a decision today, because otherwise, we can't move forward either way. Jerry Haning stated okay. Louise Hagood stated Mr. Chairman (Jerry Harting), on 2.a., we haven't heard Mr. Glick and she would like to ask him a question. Jerry Haning stated go right ahead. Louise Hagood asked the appeal of the decision revoking the permit, it talks about your hardships. Tell me what your hardships have been other than the delay of time? Ben Glick stated we incurred a great expense with our general contractor, the design and the dirt work. Then we've hired employees, or specifically a manager, who we were training, hoping to open up the facility some time ago here in Paris. We do feel obligated not to let that employee go because of events outside of his control, so we continue to have him on our payroll. Mostly design and development cost of the business. Louise Hagood asked what about your contracts with the subcontractors? Were you able to cancel those when you got the decision to revoke the permit? Ben Glick stated yes, but a great deal of work had already been performed. A lot of the construction process occurs before you actually break ground, in the planning. Louise Hagood asked so do you have a dollar figure off the top of your head? Steve Walker stated yes, we provided information to the City, and obviously there's disagreement over what those figures are, but damages are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Louise Hogood stated okay. Jerry Haning stated unfortunately, the City of Paris had several employees that made a mistake. Mr. Haning further stated is there anyone else that had anything to speak one way or the other on this before we bring it to a vote? Christy Wendell (citizen) stated that she lived on Primrose, directly behind the proposed location for the recycling center. This was not ever a political issue as Mr. Walker stated earlier. This was an issue of the City made a mistake, its human error. We've all been guilty of that. When that mistake was pointed out, she personally called fifteen planning and zoning commissions around the United States. The first thing she did was googled recycling depot, the exact title. She called each one of those depots to make sure that she was comparing apples to apples. She asked them are you a consumer - friendly, strictly drop -off, not - industrial just a collection facility. Then called the city's planning and zoning department in that area and asked how this location for this consumer - friendly drop -off recycling center had been zoned. She received a 100 percent of them were zoned industrial. They chided me for even considering that this could be a commercial application, gave me the long list of all of the issues and problems with this, especially being located adjacent to a residential area. Mrs. Wendell further stated that she provided all of the information to the planning and zoning, to council, to everybody previously. We're not trying to cherry -pick, but we didn't find a single incident of where a facility with operations of this nature was in a commercially zoned area. That was the real turning point. When she talked to John Godwin he said obviously we have made a mistake, we are going to go back and review this, and we should have done more homework on this. A mistake has been made and we will take a look at it. It was on that basis that the zoning was looked at again Mrs. Wendell stated. She also took a personal issue as a resident of the city, what costs the City might incur as a result of the inordinate expenses that the Glicks have incurred. The Glicks has not moved one blade of grass on this lot until they got wind of the resident objection. That very same week, they started work like fleas on a dog. They were bulldozing, they were not in compliance with standard construction practices of silt fencing and rock egress and all of those standard items. She went to Shawn Napier, and said they are trying to hurry up, demonstrate, that they have incurred construction cost so the City will have a liability as a result. They're not in compliance, and it needs to be red -tag and shut down before any more expenses are incurred. The Glicks continued to bulldoze their way through. Mrs. Wendell further stated that she encouraged the City to look very carefully at these purported excess cost they have had. There were ample opportunities, and the Glicks just thought, were going to ramrod this despite some opposition that we have incurred, we have our building permit and were going forward full- speed ahead. Thank you. Vic Ressler (Citizen) stated he lives at 4020 Holbrook. As far as cost, remember that probably much of that is land cost and they still have the land they can resell, but that is really beside the point. Mr. Ressler stated he read in the paper and got a letter, because he own property across from a site in Reno, that the City of Reno has approved for them to move on to another place, a much bigger place that would afford them for other opportunities besides just recycling. Having said that, it is just his opinion that in order for them to go ahead and try to recover money from the city, they have to go through this process. If you grant them the variance and grant them this permission to, override the City's decision not to let it go there, then once they have that they can pursue remedies with the City and they can go there with their other project. In Mr. Ressler's opinion he stated that this board then should deny letting them build there. If that happens the variance is academic. The variance doesn't mean anything if this board say, no, we're not overriding what the City has done. They can get their legal stuff going with the City and work that out. The amount of it is up to that. We don't have any control over that. The board doesn't have control over that. If their intent is to go to Reno, we understand they've gotten approval to do so, this will allow them to go on and do that. So this is a procedural thing. In Mr. Ressler's opinion he stated this is a procedural thing they have to do in order to go forward on anything. His suggestion would be for the board not to override the City. Thank you. Jerry Haning stated we need a motion to either affirm or reverse the decision of the City of Paris building commission. Do I hear a motion? Motion was made by Marilyn Smith, seconded by Louise Hagood to affirm with the City of Paris decision. Motion carried 4 -0. b. Consideration of Mr. Glicks's Variance request for property located at 4250 Lamar Avenue, Paris, Texas. Kent McIlyar stated if the applicants want to speck to 2.b., to their request for variance, they can do so. Jerry Haning stated who would like to speak to this item. Steve Walker stated he already said everything that he believes applies to both things. So everything that was said previously, he urges the same information with this request for variance. So there's nothing more to say, he certainly doesn't want to get into a back and forth with the citizens, so he stated he wouldn't do that. Jerry Haning stated thank you. We need a motion for or against the request for the motion of the variance. Motion was made by Louise Hagood, seconded by Deanna Manning to deny the variance request. Motion carried 4 -0. 3. Meeting adjourned at 6:12 p. m. APPROVED THE 3' DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015.