Terrell council approves smaller minimum for SF‑6 infill after heated debate

The Terrell City Council on Jan. 21 approved Ordinance No. 3080 with a change to the SF‑6 single‑family infill standard, lowering the minimum dwelling size from 1,300 to 1,100 square feet.

The action followed a lengthy public discussion and council debate over whether reducing the minimum size for infill homes would improve affordability or create lower‑quality housing. Mayor Ronnie Velasquez moved to amend the ordinance to set the SF‑6 minimum at 1,100 square feet; the motion was seconded by Councilmember Donna Renee Anderson and carried by a 3–2 vote after an earlier motion to approve the ordinance as presented failed.

Supporters of the 1,100‑square‑foot minimum said the change offers more options for lower‑cost, smaller homes on existing lots and gives flexibility for infill development. Councilmember May Ronnie Velasquez framed the vote as a compromise after Planning and Zoning recommended 1,300 square feet and staff had initially proposed 1,100. “In the interest of compromise and, you know, respecting the review done by P and Z, I can get behind the compromise of, you know, 16, we tried 11, we landed at 13,” Velasquez said during the meeting as council debated how to proceed.

Opponents warned the reduction might not produce genuinely affordable housing and could invite speculative developers to build low‑quality units that remain expensive. Councilmember Phil Robinson said he had not seen data showing smaller minimum sizes would make homes meaningfully more affordable and said developers can still price small homes in the same range as larger ones. “I don't think that allowing small houses to be built is the solution to our affordable housing problem,” Robinson said.

City planning staff presented the ordinance and an exhibit showing how a 1,300‑square‑foot house would fit on an infill lot; staff explained the ordinance also preserves an option for larger houses (1,600 square feet) in return for different setback and facade requirements. Assistant Director of Municipal Development Raylan Smith told the council that reconstructing a nonconforming structure allows a homeowner to rebuild to the same size: “If you are reconstructing an existing structure, that is deemed non conforming as of section 7, then they are able to reconstruct or repair that same size structure.” Smith also explained variance and appeals processes, noting variances are considered by the Zoning Board of Adjustment and that monetary inability is not defined as hardship under state law.

Several residents spoke during the visitors’ portion, urging the council to consider neighborhood character and the risks of investor‑owned, low‑quality housing. Amberlyn Spencer McNutt, a District 2 resident, said smaller homes remain a desirable choice for many neighbors: “Size does not dictate quality.” Deborah Kelly, another resident, urged the council to guard against corporate builders she said could leave poorly maintained rental homes in neighborhoods and pointed to maintenance problems in some newer developments.

Planning and Zoning had unanimously recommended a 1,300‑square‑foot minimum as a compromise between staff’s 1,100 proposal and an earlier 1,600 standard. Council members debated whether to accept P&Z’s recommendation or adopt the lower staff figure; after an initial vote on the ordinance as presented failed, the council adopted the ordinance with the 1,100‑square‑foot infill minimum.

The ordinance also included other zoning changes (facade and mobile food unit service requirements among them) that council members said they generally supported. City staff said the ordinance does not change land‑use classifications and therefore does not require a supermajority to alter the written square footage standard.

Councilmembers and staff noted state legislative activity on minimum lot sizes could require future changes to local codes. Smith said staff is monitoring proposed state legislation and will update the council as new mandates are proposed.

The council’s ordinance vote amends Appendix 2 (Zoning) and will be reflected in the city’s zoning code as set out in the ordinance exhibit accompanying Ordinance No. 3080.

The council moved to its next agenda item after the ordinance vote.