Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects condition to limit accessory dwelling occupancy after public hearing at 2644 Miller Ranch Road
Summary
Council voted 5-2 to decline a proposed condition requiring accessory dwelling units (ADUs) be occupied only by relatives of the primary resident for a CUP at 2644 Miller Ranch Road. The CUP request concerned installing a kitchen range in an existing accessory building; staff had recommended a condition limiting occupancy to related persons.
Pearland City Council on Monday considered a conditional use permit (CUP) application to convert an existing accessory building at 2644 Miller Ranch Road into an accessory dwelling unit and to allow installation of a kitchen range. After public hearings and discussion, a motion to approve the CUP with staff’s recommended condition — that the ADU may be occupied only by a person related to the occupant of the primary residence — failed 2-5.
Staff presented that the property’s accessory structure was eligible for expansion but that, under the city’s code, adding a kitchen range required a CUP because it changes the unit to an accessory dwelling. The planning staff recommended approval with the condition limiting occupancy to related persons; the Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended approval 6-1 with that same condition.
Council members questioned how the condition would be enforced and how changes of ownership would be monitored. Lawrence from legal said enforcement typically begins with neighbor complaints or utility-account changes; document-based proof such as birth certificates or marriage records could be requested to verify relationships. Legal also noted the city could specify a degree of relationship (for example, first- or second-degree consanguinity or affinity) if council desired a clearer standard.
Council Member Byram and others expressed concern about the practical enforcement of a familial-occupancy condition; Byram called it a “feel-good” restriction unless the city undertook invasive verification, which council said it would not. Council Member Chavarria moved to approve the CUP including the staff-recommended condition; the motion was seconded but lost on the vote. The roll call was: Chavarria: No; Cade: No; Fernandez: No; Patel: Aye; Mayor Pro Tem Barham: No; Cozza: No; Carbone: Aye. The motion failed 2 to 5.
Because the motion to approve the CUP with that condition failed, the council did not adopt the staff-proposed occupancy restriction. Staff stated that the CUP approval would remain subject to standard permitting and zoning enforcement processes should the council later direct otherwise. The item will be returned to council only if future action is proposed.
