To: Zoning Board of Adjustment
From: Sarah Hensley, Director of Community Development
Subject:
Title
PUBLIC HEARING: Consider a request to appeal the denial of building permit RREM-2406-0005, related to the expansion of a legal non-conforming structure, on a .83-acre lot, located approximately 600 feet northeast of the Timber Ridge Lane and North Pearson Lane intersection and legally described as Lot 8, Block 1, Oakwood Estates. Rob Anderson, Applicant/Owner. (ZBA-2407-0001)
Action Requested:
Conduct a public hearing and consider a request to appeal staff’s denial of building permit RREM-2406-0005, related to the expansion of a legal non-conforming structure.
Background:
The property was platted in 1984 as part of the Oakwood Estates addition and the existing structure was built the following year. The lot was annexed into the City of Keller in 1989 and automatically zoned Single-Family Residential 36,000 square-foot lots (SF-36) according to the city’s policy on zoning upon annexation.
The property has remained under the SF-36 zoning, so the structure is considered legal non-conforming as an accessory structure without a primary dwelling unit. Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 9.06(A)(8) states that “ Accessory buildings are not permitted without a main structure unless on tracts of two (2) acres or more and used solely for agricultural purposes. Workshops, garages, or similar uses shall not be considered as agricultural purposes. In such case, a minimum of one hundred foot (100') front building setback is required.” The subject property is a .83-acre lot.
In April 2024, staff received an anonymous complaint about work being done on the subject property without a permit. When a Code Compliance officer inspected the property, they found that concrete had been poured, but no actual construction had begun, so a notice was sent advising the owner to contact the Community Development Department regarding a permit.
The Applicant submitted a building permit (RREM-2406-0005) on June 26, 2024 that showed a 1,380 square-foot addition to the existing 3,951 square-foot metal building. After consulting with the city attorney, the application was denied by staff based on the provisions in UDC Section 8.02 (A)(1):
1. Intent of Provisions.
a. Within the districts established by this Code or amendments thereto, there exist lots, structures, uses of land and structures, and characteristics of use which were lawful before this Code was enacted, amended, or otherwise made applicable to such lots, structures or uses, but which do not now conform to the regulations of the district in which they are located. It is the intent of this Code to permit such nonconforming uses to continue, as long as the conditions within this Section and other applicable sections are met.
b. It is further the intent of this Code that nonconforming uses shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended, and not be used as a basis for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district.
c. Nonconforming uses are hereby declared to be incompatible with the permitted uses in the districts involved.
UDC Section 8.02(A) is available in its entirety as part of the agenda packet.
Citizen Input:
On July 23, 2024, the City mailed out 14 Letters of Notification to the property owners within 200’ of the subject property for this Public Hearing.
Staff has received no written response from the public regarding this request. The Applicant provided eight letters of support from surrounding property owners, which are included in the ZBA agenda packet.
Summary:
Section 8.02 (C)(6) of the UDC states that when considering a variance request, the following Zoning Board of Adjustment shall Use the following criteria:
1) That literal enforcement of the controls will create an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty in the development of the affected property;
2) That the situation causing the hardship or difficulty is neither self-imposed nor generally affecting all or most properties in the same zoning district;
3) That the relief sought will not injure the permitted use of adjacent conforming property; and
4) That the granting of a variance will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of these regulations.
Authority of the Board:
Each case before the Board of Adjustment must be heard by at least seventy five percent (75%) of the Board members. The concurring vote of four (4) members of the Board is necessary to:
1) Approve as submitted
2) Approve with modified or additional condition(s)
3) Deny