Council approves special-use permit for large accessory structure at 2906 Tolar Drive after retroactive review

The Rowlett City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a special‑use permit allowing an enclosed accessory structure larger than 500 square feet at 2906 Tolar Drive, resolving a retroactive zoning request that followed a code-enforcement referral.

City staff described the property as a platted 0.86‑acre lot in a single‑family neighborhood. The home currently includes an attached primary garage, an 800‑square‑foot carport and several other outbuildings. Staff told council the proposed accessory structure totals approximately 1,400 square feet, is roughly 15 feet tall (shorter than the primary residence) and would comply with the city’s lot‑coverage limits as presented.

Staff reported the matter began as a code‑enforcement case after construction began without an approved special‑use permit. Staff said the applicant initially requested a permit to pour a driveway slab, and a final inspection for the slab was not documented before the larger structure was substantially built. Planning staff said they had met with the applicant to explain compliance requirements; the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the application on July 22 and recommended approval 4–1 with the condition that the accessory structure meet all building-code requirements.

Council members raised questions about the inspection history and the sequence of permits, noting uncertainty whether an inspection was performed during slab construction and asking what steps would be required to certify the slab and the new structure. City staff said building‑department inspections would be required and that any outstanding building-code issues would need to be resolved before final approval or occupancy; staff also noted the city typically charges increased fees for work permitted after construction (double permit fee is applied to building permits obtained retroactively).

Council discussed enforcement options for unpermitted construction and whether punitive measures beyond higher permit fees were available; the city attorney clarified that zoning approval or denial is separate from building‑permit enforcement. If council denied the SUP, the structure would remain nonconforming and the city could require removal; if council approved the SUP, the zoning violation would be corrected and the applicant would still be required to complete building‑permit inspections and comply with applicable codes, or seek variances from the Board of Adjustment where necessary.

The council approved the special‑use permit on a motion by Councilmember Shoop, seconded by Councilmember Britton. The applicant was not present at the council meeting to answer questions. Council members asked staff to complete building inspections and confirm structural and setback compliance before final permit closeout.