Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bryan Planning Commission approves side-yard setback variance at 121 North Lebanon Street
Summary
The Bryan Planning Commission approved a variance allowing a proposed addition to sit about 7 feet from an adjacent property at 121 North Lebanon Street after staff and the fire chief reported no objections and the applicant’s representative described a hardship related to a recent patio and interior layout constraints.
The Bryan Planning Commission voted to approve a side‑yard setback variance for a proposed addition at 121 North Lebanon Street on June 2, allowing the building to sit about 7 feet from the adjacent property.
Commissioners acted after staff reported that the fire chief had taken no issue with the reduced clearance and that notifications to nearby property owners produced no adverse comments. Commission discussion focused on the project layout and the hardship cited by the applicant as justification for the variance.
Andrew (staff member) told the commission the building would be “approximately 7 feet away from the adjacent property” after construction and said the fire chief “took no issues with it” and regarded that distance as “ample clearance for him.” He also said staff received about a half‑dozen inquiries about the proposal and “nobody had any concerns.”
Daniel Dunlap, the applicant representative, described the addition as “a proposed layout … basically a master suite on the first floor with a laundry and a bathroom” and said the family’s interior floor plan and a recently constructed patio created a hardship for locating the addition elsewhere. Dunlap added the addition is intended, in part, “for a baby on the way for him. He’s a single father.”
A commissioner moved to approve the variance; there was no recorded second. The roll call recorded unanimous affirmative votes from commissioners present, and the motion passed. The commission did not attach conditions to the approval during the meeting.
No statutes, city codes, or specific ordinance numbers were cited during the discussion, and the fire chief was not present at the meeting. The commission closed the item after the vote and had no substantive additional business on the agenda that afternoon.
The project’s next steps—such as building permit submittal, plan review, or inspections—were not specified at the meeting.
