While they say good fences make good neighbors, walls apparently do not.
Jim and Anne Martin of Spillar Lane have sued the city of West Lake Hills over a retention wall they had built at the entrance to a new street off Yaupon Valley Road for a small subdivision. The city says the wall, comprised of vertically laid rock, was not in the original plans and must be reconstructed, while the couple says they were within their rights.
“There was a subdivision approved back in 1976 called the Rogers Wilson Subdivision,” City Administrator Robert Wood said. “The subdivision plat was approved, which sets the boundaries for the properties. All that was done back in the ‘70s, but the street itself was actually never built.”
Since the plat was approved before many current city ordinances, it is grandfathered in under the old laws, but both the owners and city officials signed a short development agreement to set certain standards. While the agreement does not mention anything specifically about a retention wall, it does make a provision for anything not included in the original plans.
“Any development activity not yet expressly permitted by the city shall be subject to review and determination by the city under applicable regulations,” the letter reads.
City officials say the unconventional, vertically laid wall wasn’t on the plans and is subject to the new laws, while the owners say they were well within their rights to build it.
After the owners did not comply with an order from the city to tear it down, city officials began charging the owners for doing work without a permit and doing work within the right of way. While a separate citation can be delivered every day that the wall continues to exist, city attorney Roger Gordon told a 345th Judicial District Court judge at a hearing Friday that they would not continue to levy the fines after the initial seven days they had already cited.
The city also charged the Martins with cutting down a tree without a permit and doing work on a Sunday.
“The law says you can’t change the rules once you start a project,” the Martins’ attorney, George Slade said at the hearing.
Slade also argued that the city was aware of the wall being built during its construction.
City officials, however, say that they asked the couple to halt construction as soon as they became aware of the wall and that the Martins did not comply.
Furthermore, they say jursdiction rather than grandfathering is the main question at the moment. Because the couple had not appealed the staff decision to the board of adjustments, the case is not yet ripe for district court.
“You cannot bypass the city’s regulatory process and come straight to district court for a Chapter 245 hearing,” Gordon said.
The judge withheld any decisions until a Nov. 23 hearing to determine the jurisdiction.