Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning And Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Abilene board grants rear‑setback variance for 1758 Oldham Lane after finding rebuilding would create undue hardship

3310275 · May 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Abilene Board of Adjustments voted 5‑0 to approve a variance allowing a 20‑foot rear setback where 25 feet is required for the house at 1758 Oldham Lane, property owner Nathan Franco.

The Abilene Board of Adjustments voted 5‑0 to approve a variance allowing a 20‑foot rear setback where 25 feet is required for the house at 1758 Oldham Lane, property owner Nathan Franco.

City planner Kara Belois told the board the request is to permit the existing house, which was built to a 20‑foot rear setback although the code requires 25 feet. "Staff has determined that there are no apparent conditions within this property that create an undue hardship," Belois said, and she recommended the board consider the land‑development code's standards as written.

The case drew one formal public objection. Maria Cranover, who lives at 1771 Crooked Branch Circle, said the new house is too close to her fence and that she feared loss of privacy and a negative impact on property value. "When they were building I thought that was too close to my fence," Cranover told the board. Veronica Krause, who spoke with Cranover at the hearing, said the mailed notice had led them to expect a different structure directly behind Cranover’s lot and that the new information—that the house sits somewhat to the side—was "new information to us."

Board members discussed inspection and permitting processes and noted the house is already built. Several members said requiring the owner to tear down and rebuild would create a financial hardship. One member summarized the position for the record: because the violation was not caught during inspections and because of the cost of tearing down and rebuilding, denying relief would impose an undue hardship. The board concluded the four variance criteria could be answered in the affirmative and voted to grant the variance. The roll call recorded Haver, Zintek, Rixey, Sparks and Loudermill voting yes.

Under the board’s rules, an applicant granted a special exception or variance has 180 days from the date of approval to obtain any required building permit. Appeals of Board of Adjustments decisions may be filed to a court of record within 10 days of the decision.

The board moved on to its next agenda item after the vote.