Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Nonconformities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rowlett P&Z recommends denial of temporary exception for accessory structures that violate side setbacks
Summary
The Rowlett Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend denying a draft amendment that would have allowed the City Council to grant limited exceptions permitting small accessory structures to be rebuilt in side-yard setbacks if they existed before Dec. 17, 2019. Commissioners cited verification and policy concerns.
The City of Rowlett Planning and Zoning Commission on Feb. 25, 2025 voted to recommend denial of a proposed amendment to Section 77-908 of the Rowlett Development Code that would have allowed limited exceptions for certain accessory structures built within required side-yard setbacks. The motion to deny passed 5–0; two commissioners abstained.
City staff explained that the draft ordinance would give the City Council the option to approve a building permit for an attached or detached accessory structure up to 250 square feet and 12 feet in height to be rebuilt in a side-yard setback if the applicant shows the structure was originally constructed prior to Dec. 17, 2019. The provision as drafted would require the application to be filed by Nov. 1, 2026, and the ordinance itself would sunset on Dec. 31, 2026. A permitting fee exemption for structures rebuilt under this provision was also described in the staff presentation.
Staff said the rule change is narrowly intended to restore certain pre-2019 accessory structures that are otherwise legal nonconformities. As city staff put it during the hearing, the proposal would allow a structure to be “considered legal nonconforming” if council finds the applicant demonstrates the prior construction date and other required facts.
Commissioners pressed staff on verification and policy. Commissioner White asked how the city would prove a structure actually existed before Dec. 17, 2019 when permits were not always required; he said the proposal could allow someone who built a nonconforming structure recently without a permit to claim it predates the cutoff. Commissioners also questioned whether allowing reconstruction in the setback undermines the city’s post-2019 emphasis on permitting and code compliance, and whether rebuilding would have to meet current building codes. Staff replied that a permit issued under this provision would require the rebuilt structure to meet current building codes and that the City Council—not staff—would judge whether the required evidentiary facts were satisfied.
The Commission’s denial is a recommendation to the City Council; if the council votes differently the ordinance could still be approved at that later stage. No further action on this draft occurs until council action.
