Loading...
BOA 10-26-2015 MinutesBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES October 26, 2015 The Schertz Board of Adjustment convened on October 26, 2015 at the Municipal Complex, Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Richard Dziewit, Chairman David Reynolds, Vice Chairman Frank McElroy Earl Hartzog Reginna Agee BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Dani Salas 1. 2. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL CITY STAFF Lesa Wood, Senior Planner Bryce Cox, Planner I Patti White, Executive Asst. of Development OTHERS PRESENT Michael Pate, Electric Guard Dog LLC. Trevor Williams, MAS Development CO LP Mr. Dziewit called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. and recognized members present. SEAT ALTERNATE TO ACT IF REQUIRED Not required. 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 REGULAR MEETING Ms. White stated that she had one correction and that there needed to be one change made on page 5, 3 paragraph ending with the sentence: Mr. Braha, the Applicant, stated he (add the word) "had" nothing more to add. Mr. Hartzog moved to approve the minutes as amended. Ms. Agee seconded the motion. Vote was 4 -0. Motion carried. Mr. McElroy arrived at 6:03 P.M. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: A. BOA 2015 -009 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to UDC Article 9, Section 21.9.8.B.2.b. Prohibited Materials, in order to permit an electric fence to be installed at 18115 IH- 35N. Mr. Dziewit opened the Public Hearing at 6:04 P.M. Mr. Cox gave the presentation on BOA2015 -009 by stating that the Applicant is requesting a variance to Article 9, Sec.21.9.8, Screening and Fencing to allow an electric fence around the Minutes Board of Adjustment October 26, 2015 Page 1 of 3 perimeter of the storage yard on the subject property. The public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" on October 8, 2015 and in the "Herald" on October 14, 2015. There were five (5) notices mailed to surrounding property owners on October 7, 2015. At the time of this meeting, two (2) responses have been received; one (1) in favor of the request from the subject property owner and one (1) neutral to the request. The subject property is an approximately 3 acre tract of land containing two buildings totaling approximately 32,000 square feet of floor space and is occupied by a heavy equipment sales, service or rental facility. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an electric fence around the storage yard which is not permitted by the Unified Development Code (UDC). Pursuant to the UDC Article 9, Section 21.9.8.B.2.b, Fences Nonresidential and Multifamily Areas: Prohibited Materials, above - ground electrical fencing, wire mesh (such as hog wire or chicken wire), screening slats within chain link fences and barbed wire are prohibited except for parcels or lots one (1) acre or greater in size in conjunction with the containment of livestock or farm animals. The applicant installed a ten foot (10') electric fence without a permit around the storage yard at the subject property. The Building Inspections department discovered the fence while conducting scheduled inspections for permitted interior renovation work. Staff met with the owner and applicant to discuss the fence and code violation. The applicant and property owner expressed a desire to seek a variance for the electric fence. Based on discussion between the Building Office and the property owner the fence has been lowered to eight feet (8') in height, which is the maximum height permitted by the UDC, and de- energized for the duration of the variance process. The property is located at 18115 IH -35N, approximately 3,250 feet east of the intersection of FM 3009 and 111 -35N. According to UDC, Article 3, Sections 21.3.4.C, in order to make a finding of hardship and grant a variance from the zoning regulations of the UDC, the Board must determine the following: 1. The requested variance does not violate the intent of this UDC or its amendments; UDC Article 9 is intended to enhance property values, maintain aesthetic attractiveness, and promote commercial opportunity in the City, and to support and ficrther the objectives of the City's Comprehensive Land Plan. The variance does not meet the intent of the UDC because the requested electric fence is not being used for the containment of livestock and is expressly prohibited by the UDC. 2. Special conditions of restricted area, topography or physical features exits that are peculiar to the subject parcel of land and are not applicable to other parcels of land in the same zoning district; The purpose of this variance is to acknowledge the special circumstances particular to the subject property. The subject property is not influenced by conditions that are unique to the land or land use. 3. The hardship is in no way the result of the applicant's own actions; or 4. The interpretation of the provisions in this UDC or any amendments thereto would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district that comply with the same provisions. The property has no special circumstances or unique conditions that would result in the need of the variance requested. The variance request conflicts with the provisions of the UDC. Currently properties within the City of Schertz requesting a permit for a new fence are subject to the same electric fence and barbwire regulations. Staff recommends denial of BOA 2015 -009. The request for a variance does not comply with all the criteria for granting a variance as presented above. The applicant desires to erect an electric fence that is not in compliance with what is allowed per Code and does not provide sufficient justification Minutes Board of Adjustment October 26, 2015 Page 2 of 3 5. 6. for granting a variance. Mr. Pate, the Applicant, that they are a licensed alarm contractor in the state of Texas and stated that they did the research and didn't find the section mentioned, and this system is hooked up to a battery powered by solar. He also stated that the UDC mentioned that this type of fence can be in the zone if there is livestock, and they could put up a chicken coop if they wanted. He also stated that the power lines are next to the access easement and this gives easy access to the property, and in addition that the back of the property is a wooded area and those are reasons why they applied for the variance. Mr. Dziewit closed the Public Hearing at 6:13 P.M. Mr. Hartzog asked about the voltage that is going through the fence. Mr. Pate stated that it is very similar to cattle fence and operates on 115" of the energy of a cattle fence. Mr. Hartzog asked if there were pictures to explain this interior fence. Mr. Pate showed a diagram and explained that they already permitted the 8' chain link fence, and the electric fence is built inside the chain link fence similar to other fences in Texas and the San Antonio area. Ms. Agee asked if the other fences violate the UDC of those locations. Mr. Pate answered no. Discussion followed between the Board, the Applicant, the Owner and Staff. Mr. Hartzog motioned to table this item to get additional information. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Agee moved to deny the request for a variance. Mr. McElroy seconded the motion. Vote was 5 -0. Motion carried to deny the variance. ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Announcements by Members • None. B. Announcements by City Staff • Ms. Wood stated that several of the P &Z Commissioners recently attended the Texas APA Conference and David Richmond was nominated and was awarded the title of 2015 Commissioner of the Year at the conference. Ms. Wood stated that a presentation would take place at a City Council meeting and at a Planning and Zoning Meeting. Mr. Hartzog asked if Staff could give theirs notice and Ms. Wood stated that she will send out a notice to the Board. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:47 P.M. Chairm , Board of Adjustf&nt Minutes Board of Adjustment October 26, 2015 Page 3 of 3 { Recording­- ecording Secretary, City of Schertz