To: Zoning Board of Adjustment
From: Justin Wilkins, BO
Subject:
Title
PUBLIC HEARING: Consider a variance to Section 9.07.K.3.c. of the City of Keller Unified Development Code that states, “all drive gates directly adjacent to a thoroughfare as shown on the Thoroughfare Plan must be inset for a minimum of fifty feet (50') from the edge of the curb or edge of pavement.” The property is on approximately 0.7500-acres, legally described as Block 1, Lot 5B, of Village Mill Addition, zoned Single-Family 36,0000 square-foot minimum lots (SF-36). The subject property is located at 536 Bancroft Road, Keller, Texas 76248. Velez-Conty, Carlos Applicant/Owner. (ZBA-2606-0003)
Action Requested:
The Applicant submitted an email on June 18, 2026, stating he requests “protective alternative practical/variance relief from the City’s asserted application of UDC §9.07(K)(3)(c), or any related drive-gate setback/inset provision the City contends requires a 50-foot inset for a drive gate adjacent to a thoroughfare as applied to 536 Bancroft Road. This request includes the City’s asserted measurement origin, datum selection, and application of the 50-foot requirement to an unimproved Bancroft Road frontage with no curb, sidewalk, or parkway. The requested relief also recognizes that the existing/corrected gate location is generally aligned with the frontage pattern and gate/fence placement of neighboring properties in the area, rather than creating an out-of-pattern condition.”
Background:
•August 22, 2025: Code Compliance received a complaint about a fence being built without a permit.
•August 27, 2025: A site visit was completed by staff, who confirmed a fence with a drive gate was completed without a permit.
•August 27, 2025: Courtesy notice sent to Applicant by Code Compliance.
•September 5, 2025: Fence permit application submitted by Applicant.
•September 9-10, 2025: Review comments returned, stating, “Drive gate must be a minimum of 50’ from edge of road,” and “Fence is currently at 28'7" Drive gate will need to be moved to meet the approved 50' setback from road. Permit was issued so construction modifications could be made.
•October 28, 2025: Applicant submitted a ZBA variance application
•March 6, 2026: ZBA Application fee paid
•May 11, 2026: Applicant clarified that “For docketing and scheduling purposes only, I select Option 1: appeal of a decision of an administrative official. The exact decision being appealed is the April 21, 2026 Final Notice in Code Case #2508-0551, including the City’s determination that the drive-gate/fence condition at 536 Bancroft Road
violates the UDC drive-gate setback provisions, the City’s measurement and application of that setback requirement, and the related nuisance/enforcement classification.” (see Staff Attachment for full text of May 11, 2026 email)
• June 1, 2026: Applicant went to ZBA to appeal the decision of an Administrative Official. The Board voted 4-1 to deny without prejudice to later apply for a variance.
•June 18, 2026: Applicant applied for a Zoning Board of Adjustment Variance.
•June 20, 2026: ZBA Application fee paid.
Citizen Input:
On June 25, 2026, the City mailed out 15 Letters of Notification to the property owners within 200’ of the subject property for this Public Hearing.
One letter of support was received from a nearby property owner prior to the Board’s June 1, 2026 consideration of the Applicant’s appeal of a decision of an Administrative Official, which has been included for reference.
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