Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Call the Tuesday, 02/04/2026 zoning board of adjustment meeting to order. Cecilia, please call the roll.

Chair Estridge?

Here.

Vice chair Chandler?

Here.

Board member Coop?

Here.

Board member Sims?

Here.

Board member Lily? Here. Board, alternate probe? Alternate computing?

K. Pursuant to section five five one dot zero zero seven allows public to speak for a total of three minutes on any agenda items listed below. Has anyone signed up?

No.

Okay. Approval of minutes. Consider approval of the minutes for November 12, '24, zoning meeting. Are there any amendments or revisions to the meeting minutes? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion.

Motion to approve the minutes.

Second. I'll I'll second

it. Okay. Chandler and Willie. You go ahead and pull the ball. Board.

Vice chair Chandler?

Yes.

Board member Koop?

Yes.

Board member Sims?

Yes.

Board member Lily? Chair Esperich?

Yes. Motion carries. Next, we'll consider the nomination election of a chairperson. Open the floor for nominations of a chairperson. And I'd like to go ahead and nominate myself again. I'll second. Okay. Seconded by Willie. Any other nominations? Okay. Nominations are closed. We'll take the vote.

Vice Chair Chandler. Aye. Board member Coop.

Aye.

Board member Sims.

Yes.

Board member Lilley. Yes. Chair Esperidge.

Yes. Nomination carries unanimously. Elected chairman again. Next is nomination election of vice chair.

You want to move it? A volunteer.

Okay. Any other nominations?

Is there a second for that?

Oh, second. Sims. Any other nominations? Okay. They're closed. We'll take the vote.

Vice chair Chandler?

Yes.

Board member Coop?

Yes.

Board member Sims?

Yes.

Board member Lily?

Yes.

Chair Esperich?

Yes. Nomination carries unanimously. Keith is elected vice chairman. Okay. Next, we'll consider administrative appeal to the zoning administrators interpretation of section two twenty six, zoning development code regarding building setbacks. It's regarding, residency at 601 Broken Bow Drive.

Good evening, chairman and board. Alice with planning and development services. According to section 10 dash 67 b one of the code describes one of the powers and duties of the zoning board of adjustments as an administrative appeal. The ZBA shall hear and decide an appeal that alleges error in an order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official with the zoning administrator and the enforcement of the code. So a request has been made for an appeal to a zoning interpretation that was issued by the city's zoning administrator concerning an unpermitted attached roof structure on a residential property.

The appeal contest the determination that the structure must adhere to the required residential setbacks per the zoning and development code. This property is located at 601 Broken Bow Drive and is currently zoned SF 2, our single family standard lot. The structure in question is an open covered patio supported by four by four posts built with two by six rafters at 24 inches on center. It was constructed without a permit, and the structure was identified as a violation to the the development code by code enforcement. Section two twenty six of the zoning and development code specifies a 20 foot building setback from the right of way for primary structures zoning district.

This subject property's recorded plat establishes a 10 foot minimum building setback. Being that the structure is attached to the house, it's considered part of the primary residence rather than being classified as an accessory structure. Staff acknowledged that the property was platted prior to the 20 foot setback requirement, therefore allowing the 10 foot setback from the plat to hold in this situation. And the structure currently encroaches into the minimum 10 foot setback. A permit will also be required to bring the structure into compliance.

Just a few notes from the code, for our SF 2 zoning district, the dimensional standards, minimum setback from the right of way is 20 feet. Minimum setback for an accessory structure is five feet. By definition, an accessory building structure for residential is considered a structure which is on the same parcel of property as a principal structure and the use of which is incidental to the use of the principal structure. Setback building line are the lines within a lot created by the intersection of the vertical planes of a building in the ground. And the required building setback line is measured from the property line.

Just a timeline here. On December 24, the owner requested a formal zoning interpretation from the city. The zoning interpretation was issued on January 2. January 9, the building permit was submitted, and it was denied on January 13. The applicant submitted an appeal regarding the zoning administrator's interpretation the same day on January.

Staff recommends that the zoning board of adjustment uphold the zoning administrator's interpretation that the structure is part of the primary residence due to its attachment and therefore not considered an accessory structure. Accordingly, this would require the 10 foot plat setback to be applicable and the minimum standard, and a building permit is mandatory to ensure structural safety and easement verification. No, structures are allowed to encroach in the easement or setbacks. That concludes my presentation. I'll be be available for questions after the applicant's statement and discussion. Thank you.

Does the applicant or owner have anything they'd like to add? Are they here?

Chairman and members of the board, thank you for hearing my appeal. This case is, not about whether the city may enforce its code and it's not about whether a permit may be ultimately required. It's about whether the zoning interpretation correctly applied this specific subsection of the code that governs this situation. In 2020, City Council adopted section two twenty six F which states that when a rear or rear side lot line does not abut a developed or planned single family lot no setback applies. The interpretation under appeal does not make that determination instead it relies on an attachment based theory that does not appear anywhere in the text of section two twenty six.

My request today is it's narrow procedural that the board requires that the code to be applied as written using the test city council enacted before any setback is imposed. The section two twenty six F establishes a straightforward factual test. The question is whether the lot line adjacent to the structure abuts a developed or planned single family lot. If it does not, the ordinance provides that there is no setback applies. Here the open porch extension is located along a lot line that does not abut a neighboring residence.

One side abuts a public dead end right away and the rear abuts a city owned land. The adjacent boundary is separated by non residential property by existing concrete walls and a tree canopy. The zoning interpretation under appeal does not make a finding on this required condition. It does not analyze what the lot line abuts. Instead it applies a side yard setback based on an attachment based classification that does not appear in two twenty six f.

The exhibits submitted simply illustrate these surrounding conditions so the board could apply the ordinance. To close, this appeal does not ask the board to create I don't need an exception or or way hardship. I'm only asking that the zone the zoning interpretation apply the test city council adopted in 2020 for 02/26 F. That subsection was enacted to address setback applications where no neighboring residents is impacted and establishes a specific factual test for that purpose. Because a lot lines adjacent to the open porch extension do not abut a developed or planned single family residence, the ordinance provides that no setback applies.

I respectfully ask that the board ask the board to reverse the interpretation and require the code to be applied as written. Thank you for your time and consideration. Appreciate it.

The

time that you built this and the time that the city said came to tell you that you needed to build a permit. How long was that time?

It was built in May and I believe the city came by I got a notice in October.

That was this year?

This past year yes sir.

Okay.

Your citation of the paragraph in the code left off the first part of that in that accessory building setback in SF3 when the rear or side lots does not abut a single family. It specifically specifies an accessory building. By attaching the structure to the house, you've basically made it an awning and it becomes part of the house. So you're asking the board to consider it an accessory structure? Structure?

Yes. In 226F that was adopted in 2020, it doesn't distinguish between attached or detached structures. It's simply the test is lot line adjacency. It turns on lot line adjacency, not attachment, whether it's detached or attached.

But once it's attached to the house it becomes part of the house and now the setback for the house becomes applicable.

When that was adopted in 2020 there was just nothing specifying if it was attached or detached. I have the when when this was when this was adopted in 2020 I I do have the city's adoption presentation from the 2020 meeting which explains you know plain language But

it generally accepted definition of a shed or an accessory building is one that is not attached to and not part of the house structure.

There was just nothing in the code that specifies that? There's there's nothing in the code that specifies that?

That's not accurate. Accessory buildings and structures is defined in the code in section 150. It includes but is not limited to swimming pools, pool houses and cabanas, workshops, decks, storage sheds, barbecue structures, detached garages, playscapes, tree houses and other similar buildings or structures.

But he's using information from 2020 and you just did this within a year or two years which is 2524. Right. So you're using old information. I mean that's the biggest thing that I see.

The code amendment that was passed in 2020 was in response to a homeowner who wanted to build an accessory structure. I think it was a pool deck maybe in their backyard. Their rear yard lot line backed up to a wide open drainage easement undevelopable lot. And so we thought it was reasonable at the time to add this amendment to the code specifying that accessory structures that abut these properties that are undevelopable for single family purposes or undevelopable for any purpose can have a zero foot setback. But again, those are accessory structures which are detached structures not part of the main house.

I have a follow-up question for you. The fact that this is up against a road right of way, what impact does that have?

I would excuse me. I would still interpret it in it in the same way as the intent of when it was originally passed in 2020. I don't necessarily like to go down the road of hypotheticals though necessarily and like to keep discussion focused to the interpretation at hand. But in general, we would apply the same we we would see this not necessarily falling as an accessory structure as seen under that amendment that would that where a zero foot setback would apply.

Do we have a definition for permanent structure? Would that would that

somewhere in the in the code?

We do not. No. We don't in our code, we don't have a definition for primary principal structure. So typically when that happens when the city's code doesn't have a definition for something, falls back to I think in our code, actually reference a specific dictionary that that would have to be used in those cases.

Okay. So is there anything in the in the code that would say that an auxiliary structure cannot be attached to your primary structure?

There's not explicit language in the code that says an accessory structure cannot be attached to the primary structure.

Okay. And I I know there are other cities. I I found this very interesting. I so I looked up Marble Falls. And Marble Falls, their their code actually specifies that auxiliary structures can be attached or unattached. And so for me, is a little bit vague. I also think about other things. For example, a duplex. Duplex has a shared wall. Would we consider that one or two buildings? Right? They're not the same thing. All right. So thank you.

As far as easements, where is the city easement for the water lines going up this hill? Is it straight down the middle or

We'd have to have a survey in front of us to know exactly what easements are impacting this property. It's impossible. It is possible that the easements are not on this property for city. Usually those would just be in the right of way fully contained in the right of way.

Okay. So

this But that does not preclude the possibility of public utility easements that other utility companies have the rights to.

Yeah. Okay.

And we did notice in the the permit that was submitted or attempt to be submitted by mister Lightbourne that there is a five foot drainage easement on that side of the property.

There's a what?

Five foot drainage easement on that side of the property. Okay. That was identified by the survey as part of the permit application package that was submitted.

So how When he submitted this request or when you submit the original permit?

The building permit from just a few weeks ago.

Okay. Now

how would that drainage easement be treated in terms of a temporary a a auxiliary structure?

We do not permit any kind of structures and drainage easements at least not without the approval of the city flood plain administrator but that's a very rare occasion to say the least.

So there are actually two reasons that this is a problem.

But that was I guess, you know, that's a we'll cross that bridge when we'll reach it sort of a problem because really the matter at hand is just the matter of the interpretation of the zoning administrator that the structure is attached to the house and should be treated as part of the house and subject to the setbacks of the house. Okay.

Shall we meet?

Ready to make a motion.

Private and discuss this a little bit, executive session back. Okay.

I got one question though. From looking at the pictures and stuff, the structure has already been built

Yes, sir.

Without the permit.

Correct.

Knowing the permit was denied.

Was built before the permit. Before you applied. Was was correct.

Before you knew you needed a permit.

I'm sorry.

Was it built before you knew that you needed a permit?

Yes sir.

Okay. So I have a question for the city. If this structure was not attached to the house but was identical for all practical purposes but supported by posts, this would be considered on auxiliary structures. Is that true?

If it was detached from the house and just fully supported by columns, it would

By a centimeter.

We would treat it as an accessory structure because it is not part of the house.

Okay. And we wouldn't have a setback problem then?

There still might be a setback problem. So

from reading what I read, my understanding is other than the drainage part of it, it didn't seem like he was within a boundary of, saying he was too close to the line. It was within limit, wasn't it?

Under his understanding of the 2020 amendment that Okay. Was

I'm in new territory here. Are we allowed to do meeting in the back?

You have to have a I mean, what would be be your reason for executive session? Are you wanting to consult with the attorney? You have to have a reason for going in into executive

with each other?

No. Not consulting with each other. Okay. It would have to be consultations with attorney if you have legal questions.

Okay. I have a question for zoning. If his application is denied and he wanted to detach it and make it a four poster, would he be allowed to do that given that you discovered the drainage easement?

As long as he stays outside the drainage easement.

Which is five feet from the fence line? Yes. He's got a

From five the property line assuming that the fence is built on the property line.

Hinge hinge near the top of the hill. Up at the top of the hill on basically a dead end street. Okay. There's a water tank right south of him. I my first home was down the block, down the street on Chisholm Valley. I'm aware of that area very well. Are

we ready for a

motion then to resolve this?

Yes. I'll make a motion to decide on Mr. Gabriel's behalf to allow ir that's

question. I

next I think be question. To about question. The building.

Okay. I have a motion and a second to allow, I'm sorry. What was your last name again?

Lightbourne. Lightbourne. Lightbourne.

Yes. Lightbourne continue as is.

So we your motion is to reverse the determination of the zoning administrator. Is that right?

That's the motion.

Yeah. Okay. So I will before we take a vote, pursuant to the local government code, if you're going to reverse the decision of the zoning administrator, it does require a 75% super majority vote. So there's five of you. So four of you would have to vote in favor of this motion in order for it to carry.

Okay. Everybody understand? Understood.

Yes. Okay. Any other questions?

Mr. Reddy? I don't mind it, but I think if he's within this drainage easement, I think that has to be corrected. And I know because where I live when it rains, I seem to get everybody's water and I

got to pump my backyard out and I'm on a hill.

So I agree with you, but that's a secondary issue. The issue here is very narrow in scope. Is this an auxiliary structure or not, right? And whether we agree with the city, which said it is a part of the building or whether it's an

auxiliary structure.

Any other questions? Okay.

Vice Chair

Let me qualify. The yes vote is approving the motion. Correct?

Everybody agree? To accept.

To accept. Yes. Yes.

Okay. To overturn. That is the motion right now. It's to overturn. So a yes vote is in favor of overturning.

Thank you. Yes. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Vice Chair Chandler?

No.

Board member Koop?

Yes.

Board member Sims? No. Board member Lily?

Lily?

Yes.

Chair Esperich.

No.

So motion does not carry. Does anybody else have a motion?

I have a motion to affirm the violation and interpretation.

I don't think need we to do that, do we? No. I don't think so. It's already there.

Let's go ahead and just yes.

You want to do that?

Yes, let's do it.

Okay. I have a motion to, what did you say?

Affirm the citation and interpretation.

Affirm the citation and interpretation. Do I

have a second?

Okay.

Mr. Sims?

Questions? Okay. Ready for the roll call?

Vice Chair Chandler?

Yes.

Board Member Koop?

No. It's the same as the last one.

So is it yes or no?

No. No. Okay.

Board member Sims?

Yes.

Board member Lily? No. Chair S. Rich?

Yes.

Has some clarity in

Did every everybody vote?

Yep. Yes.

I mean, but it's I feel sorry for it, but I've gotta get permits myself. I had to get permit to have a gas thing turned on, which pissed me off, but I had to do it. Right? That's reality of life. I understand that. But in this case, I think there's a little more wordage, a little more clarity. But if it's if it's part of the structure is part of the structure, I don't think changing that short of maybe like he was saying, if it was just a fraction, remove it from the house. And, yes, it comes at a cost, but everything does. Right. That would alleviate your issue, I think. But I run a business.

I think you at least have a much stronger case. Case.

You gotta dance to the tune is the way I look at it. I've I've gotta get permits just like everybody else whether they like it or not. Right.

Okay. Any

other Motion carries. Interpretation is upheld. Yep. Turn it over to the chair.

Okay. Any other business?

Don't Yes. Can can I ask something? If I do submit something to disconnect it from the house because that was actually something that we had considered doing.

You need to go through the planning submit your plan. Okay.

Basically do the whole thing again. Okay.

That's my understanding correct?

Correct. A permit would have been required regardless no matter how the decision went. It's just whether or not staff treats it as part of the primary structure or as a separate accessory structure.

Okay. Brad, I'm not sure if I can ask you something or not. If I do disconnect it from the house, does the zero foot setback?

We can yeah. We can discuss this after the meeting since the business of the meeting itself has been taken care of.

I have a motion. Yep. I I my motion is to encourage the city or or the planning department to clarify the the law in this aspect as to whether it can be detached or attached to define that. That's my motion.

So you're talking about section two twenty six, Adam?

Yes. So that's not one of the items listed on the agenda but staff will take note of that and we can consider amending the ordinance.

Okay. Alright. That's good enough. I withdraw my my motion.

Okay. I don't have any other business, so we'll adjourn the meeting. Motion to adjourn. Our motion to adjourn, sorry. Okay. Coop. All those in favor?

Aye. I'm

sorry. I'm doing your job now.

That's fine.

Motion that means adjourned.