Loading...
BOA 1-25-16BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES January 25, 2016 The Schertz Board of Adjustment convened on January 25, 2016 at 6:04 P.M. at the Municipal Complex, Council Chambers, 1400 Schertz Parkway Building #4, Schertz, Texas. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Richard Dziewit, Chairman David Reynolds, Vice Chairman Earl Hartzog Reginna Agee Dani Salas, Alternate BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Frank McElroy 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: CITY STAFF Lesa Wood, Director Planning & Community Devel. Bryce Cox, Planner I OTHERS PRESENT . Mr. Michael Pate, Electric Guard Dog Mr. Tim Pruski, Bella Vista C.M.I. Ltd. Mr. Dziewit called the regular meeting to order at 6:04 P.M. and recognized members present. 2. SEAT ALTERNATE TO ACT IF REQUIRED: 3. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Minutes for October 26, 2015 Regular Meeting Mr. Hartzog moved to approve the Minutes for October 26, 2015, Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Motion carried. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: A. BOA2015 -010 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- 3 5N. Mr. Dziewit opened the public hearing. Mr. Cox gave a presentation on BOA2015 -010 stating that the Applicant is requesting a variance to UDC Article 9; Section 21.9.8.B.2.b to allow an electric fence along the perimeter of a storage yard on the subject property. A public hearing notice was published in "The Daily Commercial Recorded" on January 8, 2016 and in the "Herald" on January 13, 2016. Five (5) . notices were mailed to surrounding property owners on January 14, 2016. At the time of the report, no responses had been received. The subject property is approximately 3 acres, containing two buildings totaling approximately 32,000 square feet of floor space and is occupied by a heavy equipment sales and 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. Mr. Cox mentioned that pursuant to Article 9, Section 21.9.8.B.2.b, above- ground electrical fencing is prohibited except for parcels or Minutes Board of Adjustment January 25, 2016 Page 1 of 5 lots one acre or greater in size in conjunction with the containment of livestock or farm animals. The applicant installed a ten (10) foot electric fence around the storage yard without a permit and then lowered the height to eight feet and has de- energized the fence for the duration of the variance process. Mr. Cox mentioned the intent of Article 9 of the UDC and that 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 in the UDC. The project also has no special conditions that are unique to the subject site. Staff recommended denial of BOA2016 -010. Mr. Cox introduced the applicant. Mr. Michael Pate, with Electric Guard Dog, mentioned that the fence is alarming and is not an electric fence. There is -no way anyone. could be shocked by the fencing. All - required documents have been submitted to the City. The fence is an alarmed fence. Mr. Dziewit asked for anyone else who would like speak on the case. Mr. Eric White, 17969 IH -35 N, spoke in favor of the proposed variance._ He has electric fence around his property and it does shock. Mr. Dziewit closed the public hearing. Mr. Dziewit recognized Board Member Dani Salas who was seated as a voting member on the Board of Adjustment Mr. Reynolds asked about whether the fence is electric or not. Mr. Cox responded, indicating that he spoke to the City's Chief Building Official, the fence carries an electric charge, which is potentially transferred into the body of the person who touches it, therefore it is an electric fence. Ms. Wood added that the agenda packets contain documentation submitted by the applicant regarding the fencing. Mr. Pate, stated that the fence is not an electric fence and that it cannot shock anybody. The fence is an alarmed fence. Mr. Dziewit asked Mr. Cox if someone physically checked to see exactly what this is. Mr. Cox responded that the system has not been installed and touched but that the submitted plans have been reviewed. Ms. Wood mentioned that a build permit application was submitted for this fence and it was denied because the Building Inspections Division classified it as an electric fence. Mr. Pate mentioned that the application he submitted was for an alarmed fence, not for an electric fence. Ms. Agee indicated that if there is an electric current running through a fence for the alarm, it implies it is an electric fence. Minutes Board of Adjustment January 25, 2016 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Hartzog mentioned that the application does not specify that it is an electric fence, but the supporting documentation discusses electric fencing. Mr. Hartzog mentioned that the Board previously denied an electric fence and the agenda item is for an electric fence. Mr. Hartzog made motion to deny the request because it is an electric fence on the agenda. Mr. Dziewit cited documentation that- was included in the application that implies the fence is electric. Mr. Dziewit asked staff if the application was requesting an alarmed fence instead of an electric fence, if it would be supported by staff. Mr. Cox mentioned that the City's Chief Building Official made the determination that the alarmed fence permit that was filed would be considered an electric fence. o Mr. Pate insisted that his submittal was for an alarm fence that said that he received an alarm permit from the Police Department to operate it. He emphasized that it is not an electric fence and that it would not shock anyone. Ms. Salas mentioned the University of Wisconsin document regarding electric security fences and that it conflicts with NIr. Pate's statement that his proposal is not for an electric fence. Mr. Dziewit requested more information before making a determination regarding whether it is truly an electric fence or if it is an alarmed system with a 12V battery. Based on what the Board has, it is not clear. Ms. Wood offered to provide the applicant contact information for the Chief Building Official. Mr. Dziewit indicated that at this time they are tabling the request in order to gather more information. Mr. Reynolds motioned to table BOA2015 -010 for the next official meeting. Ms. Salas seconded the motion. Mr. Hartzog mentioned that the agenda is to allow an electric fence and that he already made a motion to deny the request for an electric fence. Mr. Dziewit called for a vote on the motion to table BOA2015 -010 for the next official meeting. The vote was 1 -4 with Ms. Salas, Mr. Hartzog, Ms. Agee, and Mr. Dziewit voting nay. Mr. Hartzog made a motion to deny the request for an electric fence. Ms. Agee seconded the motion. Chairman Dziewit asked Mr. Cox if an application for an alarmed fence is submitted, if the Board would review it. Mr. Cox responded indicating that an alarmed system would not be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment since alarmed systems are not a prohibited fence type. Ms. Agee commented that if staff investigates and determines that the request is not an electric fence, then an alarmed fence could be permitted. Mr. Dziewit called for a vote on the motion to deny the request for an electric fence. Minutes Board of Adjustment January 25, 2016 Page 3 of 5 The motion carried with a unanimous vote to deny the request for an electric fence. B. BOA2016 -001 Hold a public hearing, consider and act upon a request for a variance to UDC Article 5, Section 21.5.7 Dimensional and Development Standards, in order to permit an encroachment into the front building setback at 5504 Devonwood Street. Mr. Dziewit opened the public hearing. Mr. Cox gave a presentation on BOA2016 -001 stating that the request is for a variance to UDC Article 5, Section 21.5.7 Dimensional and Development Standards in order to permit an encroachment of 2 1/2 feet into the front building setback at 5504 Devonwood Street, also known as Cypress Point Subdivision Unit 2, Lot 15, Block 5. Public Hearing notices were published in "The Daily Commercial Recorder" on January 8, 2016 and in the "Herald" on January 13, 2016. Additionally there were 23 notices mailed to surrounding property owners on January 14, 2016. Two responses have been received— one in favor of the request and one neutral. The subdivision is zoned -P,7, the eight foot wide front porch of the home encroaches 2 %2 feet into the front building setback. The encroachment was discovered by the applicant after having a final survey of the lot performed as a pre- requisite for receiving a certificate of occupancy. The R7 zoning district requires a minimum front building setback of 25 feet. Investigation of how the encroachment occurred determined that the encroachment was due to an error made by the surveyor on the original site survey. There was a conflict between the front building setback line and specific called measurements in the survey. The City's Plan Reviewer missed the discrepancy and the original site survey was approved as part of the building permit. Mr. Cox indicated that the encroachment into the front setback violates Section 21.5.7 but that it does not violate the intent of the UDC. Staff recommended approval of BOA2016- 001. Mr. Tim Pruski, Bella Vista C.M.I. Ltd., mentioned that it was an administrative error and the error was not discovered until the final survey was conducted. He also mentioned that the packet that was submitted includes approval from Cypress Point HOA's Architectural Review Committee. Mr. Dziewit closed the public hearing and requested a motion. Mr. Hartzog moved to approve the variance request to allow for a 2 %2 foot encroachment into the front yard setback. Mr. Reynolds seconded motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote to approve the request. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS: A. Announcements by Members ® No announceinents. B. Announcements by City Staff • Mr. Cox announced that Ms. Wood accepted a job promotion and is now the Director of Planning & Community Development. Minutes Board of Adjustment January 25, 2016 Page 4 of 5 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:49 P.M. airman, Board ffAdjusiment Minutes Board of Adjustment January 25, 2016 Page 5 of 5 Record ecretary, City o c rz