The Little Elm Town Council on May 2025 denied an appeal from the owner of a property that includes Little Elm Montessori and an adjacent mixed-use development, rejecting a request to allow a 288-square-foot prefabricated storage shed that exceeded the size authorized under the site's planned development and a previously issued conditional use approval.

A staff member told the council the town's planned development (PD) and development agreement allowed only a 12-by-12 storage structure; the applicant had received an administrative conditional use approval for that size but the structure placed on site measured roughly 288 square feet and would require a building permit. The director of development services denied an exception, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 5–1 to deny an appeal, and the applicant then appealed to the council for final review.

The issue combined two separate compliance concerns: a zoning/development-agreement violation because the structure exceeded the size shown in the approved PD and a permitting issue because a building of that size requires a building permit. Staff also told council members that any approval would still require separate federal clearance from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers because part of the property lies within a flood/flowage easement that falls under Corps jurisdiction.

The applicant, who identified himself as Shekari, told the council he had not realized there was a size limitation and asked the council to approve the existing structure. "Yes. So it was my mistake. I didn't realize there is a size limitation," he said. He also said the shed is behind the building and not visible from the street and that he believed neighboring properties had larger storage.

Council members asked whether a building inspection had been performed (it had not, because no building permit was issued) and whether the applicant had prior Corps approvals for earlier site plans. Staff said the applicant had a prior Corps approval for an earlier version of the project but would need a new or updated Corps clearance for changes to the plan. Staff recommended that, if the council were to approve the larger structure despite the violations, the council should require the applicant to obtain a building permit, resolve outstanding site items, and secure any required Corps approvals before the structure remained in place.

After discussion, a council member moved to deny the appeal and a second was called. The council voted in favor of denial. The council's action upheld the director's and Planning & Zoning Commission's denials and left the applicant the option of pursuing the appropriate PD amendment or additional permitting and Corps approvals if he wishes to legalize the structure.

Council action and next steps

The motion to deny the appeal passed on a council vote recorded as unanimous in the meeting record. Staff advised the applicant that the remaining options include applying for a PD amendment and pursuing the Corps of Engineers and building-permit clearances required to place a structure at the site lawfully. The council also emphasized the site had outstanding items from prior approvals that staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission had flagged.