Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Unit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waxahachie council denies accessory dwelling unit at 303 Mackenzie Street after safety and setback concerns
Summary
The City Council voted to deny a specific use permit for an accessory dwelling unit at 303 Mackenzie Street after staff and neighbors raised life‑safety, setback and permitting concerns; the applicant said the unit was built for a family member and has never been occupied.
Waxahachie — The City Council voted to deny ZDC 34‑2025, a specific use permit (SUP) request to allow an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 303 Mackenzie Street, after planning staff and council members raised concerns about setbacks, unpermitted construction and life‑safety issues.
Planning staff told the council the structure was constructed after a permit for an accessory structure and then converted to an ADU without the required inspections and documentation. "Staff is recommending denial of the proposed request," Trenton, a city planner, told the council, citing missing site‑plan details and uncertainty over required setbacks and building and fire‑code compliance.
The applicant, identified in the record as Alfredo Rojas, told the council the ADU was intended for a family member and said the unit has never been occupied. "No one's ever been — never been occupied, sir, at all," Rojas said while acknowledging he had not obtained all required permits and that contractors had done portions of the work.
Council members questioned the size of the structure compared with the original permit, drainage and proximity to a neighbor's fence. A staff measurement put the building closer to about 630 square feet on the ground, larger than the 496 square feet shown on the original site plan submitted for the accessory structure permit. Council members also warned that runoff from the ADU could accelerate deterioration of a neighbor's fence and that the location could complicate firefighter access in the event of an emergency.
One council member said the situation risked damaging 30 feet of an adjacent fence and posed a safety concern for firefighters if access gates were locked. The council pushed the applicant to work with the building department on inspections and fines if the structure could be brought into compliance, but ultimately the motion on the floor was to deny the SUP.
A motion to deny ZDC 34‑2025 carried; the transcript records the motion and that "motion carries," but does not record a roll‑call tally in the public record.
Why it matters: The case highlights enforcement and process issues when construction occurs beyond approved plans and before required inspections. Council members emphasized that permits and inspections are intended to protect neighboring property and life safety.
What happens next: Because the council denied the SUP, the applicant may reapply with corrected plans, documentation of compliance with setbacks and building and fire codes, and any required inspections or fines. The transcript records staff telling council they had reached out to the applicant multiple times for corrected site plans but had not received the necessary revisions before the hearing.
Sources: Planning staff presentation on ZDC 34‑2025; public‑hearing testimony by the applicant; council discussion and vote.
