Leon Valley board approves rear-yard setback variance at 7408 Linkwood Street

The Leon Valley Board of Adjustments on May 5 approved a rear-yard setback variance to allow a 13.5-foot encroachment into the 30-foot minimum rear setback at 7408 Linkwood Street.

The variance affects Lot 2, Block F of the Linkwood Addition Subdivision, a roughly 0.17-acre vacant lot where owner-applicant Leticia Chapa plans to build a single-story home. Planning and zoning staff recommended denial, but the board voted in favor after a public hearing and discussion.

Planning and zoning Director Es Huerta presented the staff report, saying the request was for a rear-yard variance at 7408 Linkwood Street and that staff recommended denial. "Staff is recommending denial of the request," Huerta told the board, citing the code criteria that variances require a showing of unnecessary hardship and that staff found the hardship to be self-imposed.

Builder Blaine Matthews, representing the applicant, told the board the owner conducted due diligence before purchase and relied on a neighborhood study and surveys when designing the one-story house. "She wanted something that would be low maintenance, easy for her to age gracefully in," Matthews said, and described finding surveys and a Linkwood study that, he said, informed their expectations about setbacks.

Applicant Leticia Chapa told the board she had received a copy of a Linkwood study at city hall before buying the lot and based her plans on that document. "The Linkwood study was given to me when I walked into the office the first time," Chapa said, adding that she had proceeded based on the materials she was provided.

Board discussion focused on the code criteria for variances. A legal adviser noted that allowances and precedent can vary and that financial investment alone does not create the statutory hardship necessary for a variance. Planning staff pointed to prior variance history in the neighborhood and concluded the hardship here was not unique and could be addressed by building a smaller home or a second story.

Huerta told the board staff had mailed 24 notices to property owners within 200 feet and had not received responses in favor or opposition; no public commenters spoke during the hearing. The applicant and builder said trees on the lot had already been removed and that utility hookups and permitting steps were in progress.

After the public hearing, board member Ms. Bolton moved to approve the variance; Ms. Moser seconded. The board indicated its approval by voice vote. The board did not record a roll-call tally in the transcript; the motion carried and the variance was approved.

The board moved on to other agenda items after the vote; no further conditions or appeal instructions were recorded on the transcript. Planning staff had advised the board that setbacks must comply with the zoning code even where older neighborhood studies exist and that some earlier neighborhood documents had not been adopted as city code.

What happens next: the transcript records the boardapproval and indicates staff and the applicant will proceed with permit steps; the record does not show any appeal or additional conditions attached to the variance in the meeting minutes available in the transcript.