Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Plats topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning body approves plat amendment merging Lot 13 and Lot 14 into Lot 14A in Shawwood Subdivision
Summary
The planning body approved an administrative and final review to combine Lot 13 and Lot 14 into Lot 14A, Block 5 of Shawwood Subdivision (addresses cited as 535 and 537 [street unspecified]) and to adjust building setbacks; the applicants requested a privacy fence placement 15 feet from the street side and a 25‑foot setback on the other frontage.
A property owner requested and the planning body approved an administrative and final plat amendment to combine two adjacent parcels in Shawwood Subdivision into a single lot and to shift building‑setback lines. The application file was discussed and approved by voice vote.
According to the discussion on the record, the homeowners who purchased the corner property asked to merge the adjacent undeveloped lot with their residence to allow construction of an accessory shop and a private pool. The applicants requested a swap of the current 25‑foot and 15‑foot setback lines so the newly combined lot would have a 15‑foot setback along one frontage and 25‑foot along the other; planners present said they saw no objection to that change. The transcript identifies the location as Lot 13 and Lot 14 to be Lot 14 A, Block 5 of Shawwood Subdivision at 535 and 537 (street name not specified in the transcript) with the filing date noted as May 2025.
The nut graf: The amendment alters lot lines and building‑setback geometry to allow typical accessory uses (shop, pool) and a privacy fence; staff noted similar patterns across the block and that the requested setback orientation matches nearby properties. Planning staff also advised that pool fencing must meet applicable requirements (a pool fence remains required for the pool itself) and that the fence did not have to be placed at the water’s edge where the lot abuts a drainage slope.
During review, members asked whether the proposed fence would cut through new perimeter fencing or interfere with utility features; staff said the proposed motorized gate would end prior to the perimeter fencing and that water‑meter locations were shown on the plan. The planning body moved to approve the administrative and final review and action on the plat amendment; the motion passed by voice vote after a second.
The transcript does not record a roll‑call vote or a member-by‑member tally. The applicants were present for the discussion; no written conditions or fees were listed in the meeting record.
