Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gunter Board of Adjustments denies variance for manufactured home placed in Agricultural/Flood Plain district
Summary
The Board of Adjustments unanimously denied a variance request after staff and members said the manufactured home was placed in the city's Agricultural zoning inside a FEMA-designated floodplain; applicants said the placement was the result of a mistaken city/ETJ determination and asked for a temporary accommodation.
GUNTER, Texas — The Gunter Board of Adjustments on April 17 unanimously denied a variance request to allow a manufactured home to remain on property zoned Agricultural and located within the city’s Flood Plain District.
The application sought relief from Chapter 14A, Article 7 of the city zoning ordinance to permit a manufactured (HUD-classified) dwelling on a lot whose base zoning permits only single-family detached dwellings. City staff explained the home was moved onto the lot without a building permit, and staff said flood-plain rules and the ordinance prevent new above-ground structures in that overlay without a flood study or variance.
Eric, a city planning staff member, told the board staff had received a phone inquiry before the unit moved and that the office staff said the location may have been in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ); staff later confirmed the lot is inside the city and in the Flood Plain District. "It's in the floodplain," Eric said in the presentation, and the staff report cited that the property is shown on FEMA maps as Zone A.
Family members of the applicant addressed the board. "He loves Gunter. He gets up at 05:00 in the morning to drive to his job as an airplane mechanic, and that's in Addison, Texas," said Judy Pear, who identified herself as the grandmother of the occupant. She and relatives said they believed the unit could be placed on the lot and said the placement followed verbal direction they received at a city counter.
Board members reviewed the variance flowchart and the legal criteria for variance relief, including whether the property’s condition was created by government action or by the owner. Members concluded the condition was self-created and that the property is in the Flood Plain District; the board’s legal counsel noted the inquiry had not established a government-created hardship. Multiple members expressed concern about flood risk and the lack of required permits, setbacks and utility connections if the unit remained.
The board's motion to deny the variance passed unanimously; the transcript shows board members voting in favor of denial. The city clarified that if the applicant wants to pursue legal relief they must provide evidence such as a flood study or a legally compelling hardship; otherwise code enforcement and removal remain options.
What happens next: Staff will communicate the denial to the property owner and outline the compliance pathway, including the possibility of civil citations if the structure remains without required permits and approvals.
Votes at the meeting: Board of Adjustments — deny variance (unanimous).
