Belton council approves short‑term rental appeal for duplex at 212½ North Sparks

The Belton City Council voted to approve an appeal that allows a unit of the duplex at 212½ North Sparks to be used as a non‑owner‑occupied short‑term rental despite the city’s 500‑foot spacing rule.

The decision removes the immediate enforcement barrier for the property owner, Mitchell Lemons, whose request hinged on how the ordinance measures separation when two dwelling units sit on the same lot. Staff described the situation as a “challenging interpretation issue” because the ordinance defines a short‑term rental by dwelling unit and there is no property line separating the two units at 212½ North Sparks.

The council majority framed the vote as a narrow, one‑off ruling. Planning staff told the council that the short‑term rental ordinance was intended to space separate single‑family dwelling units across a neighborhood. Bob, a city planning staff member, said, “with a duplex, we have 2 self contained units on the same lot…so it’s very difficult to separate the two.” Several councilmembers said the duplex configuration was not anticipated when the separation rule was adopted and that denying the appeal could create an unintended zoning result on a single building.

Residents and council members raised neighborhood‑quality concerns during the discussion, including potential parking and noise impacts when multiple short‑term rentals cluster on one block. Dominica Garza, who had asked the council earlier to uphold the 500‑foot separation during public comment, said maintaining spacing “will protect our neighborhoods, promote safety, and preserve housing.” The council majority, however, concluded this particular property did not match the ordinance’s spirit as originally intended and approved the appeal by a majority vote.

Council members asked staff to return with clearer language that distinguishes dwelling units (single‑family houses, duplexes, apartments, ADUs, room rentals) and how the 500‑foot measurement should be applied in cases with multiple units on one lot. The motion approved a variance for this specific property; the council did not amend the ordinance on the spot.

The appeal outcome was recorded on the council floor as an approval; the minutes and a formal roll call will clarify the exact vote tally and any motion language to be included in the administrative record. Staff said they will return with recommended clarifications to the short‑term rental ordinance to avoid similar interpretation issues in future appeals.