Cooke County approves owner-occupied bed-and-breakfast at 23750 Alexander Road, bars event use

Cooke County Commissioners Court approved a special use permit to allow an owner-occupied bed-and-breakfast at 23750 Alexander Road (Pilot Point area) after a public hearing that included neighborhood objections and planning staff briefings. The court’s motion specified the use must remain an owner-occupied bed-and-breakfast and may not operate as an event center.

The permit was approved by motion of Commissioner Snuggs, seconded by Commissioner Sicking. The court recorded the motion as passing with all present voting in favor; commissioners additionally made explicit that the permit is for an owner-occupied bed-and-breakfast and “does not turn into a hotel and that it is not an event center,” as stated by Snuggs.

Why it matters: Planning & Zoning had a split recommendation on the special use permit (SUP) and a separate 3–1 recommendation in favor of rezoning; neighbors raised safety, access, water/septic and land‑use concerns during the hearing. The commissioners’ decision resolves a current point of local controversy about whether the property can be used for short-term lodging and related gatherings.

Most important facts: The property at 23750 Alexander Road is a roughly 6‑acre tract that Planning & Zoning staff said is below the usual acreage for the county’s agriculture designation but is comparable to other parcels along the road. Planning & Zoning voted 2–2 on the SUP and 3–1 to recommend rezoning; the split SUP vote left no formal recommendation to the commissioners. Gary Yost, representing county planning, told the court that a bed-and-breakfast under county definitions is owner‑occupied with extra rooms that may be rented and that the applicant’s five-bedroom plan fits the SUP definition.

Neighbors and applicants: During the hearing, immediate neighbors voiced opposition and concern. Andrew Blicken, identifying himself as an “immediate neighbor,” said, “we strenuously object to this variance,” citing expected disturbance from a commercial use at the end of a dirt road. Bonnie Parker, who lives across the road, said she was “not against the construction of a residence, but what I am against is the intended use of this residence,” and listed concerns about a single-lane access road, parking, lighting and noise. Don Dean and several other neighbors also described the area as rural with limited access and no city water or sewer.

The applicant, who identified herself as Navia Virmacineni and said she filed under Jasmine Garden LLC, told the court the house will be her primary residence and that neighbors immediately adjacent have signed in support. She said she plans agricultural uses including a bee farm, that the build is toward the back of the property so as not to affect Corps of Engineers land, and that she has discussed well and septic plans with providers who indicated a well could be drilled (she referenced an approximate depth of 900 feet). Navia said, “it is my primary residence as well,” and that she would be on‑site.

Legal and procedural context: Planning & Zoning forwarded the SUP to the commissioners after a 2–2 tie at the commission, which left the SUP with no formal recommendation. Commissioners emphasized that the county zoning rules allow owner‑occupied bed-and-breakfasts but not event centers on residential lots; Snuggs told the court he would move to approve the SUP with the explicit restriction that it remain owner‑occupied and not operate as an event center. A public commenter questioned whether Texas Local Government Code Section 211.006 imposes a supermajority requirement; commissioners and staff responded that the P&Z body is advisory and that supermajority rules apply in limited circumstances such as appeal after a denial.

Discussion vs. decision: The commissioners’ approval is a formal action permitting the SUP under the conditions stated on the record. Concerns raised by neighbors—traffic on a single-lane road, parking and emergency access, lack of city water/sewer, and potential for noise—were discussed at length during public comment and by planning staff; the court imposed the owner‑occupied/no event‑center condition but did not place additional operational restrictions on lighting or noise. County staff and commissioners noted some matters (fire hydrants, county road width, and broader rural living norms) are not controlled by zoning.

What’s next: The court did not specify further permits or inspections beyond the SUP condition on the record; no timeline for any appeals or administrative follow-up was stated during the hearing record. Planning staff said they would continue to process applicable permits and clarifications regarding rezoning and SUP compliance.