Manvel board denies request to reduce Mason Road lot frontage to 102 feet

The Manvel Planning and Zoning Board on Tuesday voted against a zoning variance that would have allowed a roughly 1-acre lot on Mason Road to be developed with a 102-foot front lot width instead of the 120 feet required in the city’s open single-family residential zoning district.

The variance request applies to a tract generally located along the west side of Mason Road, abutting 8114 Mason Road in Brazoria County. Planning staff said the current configuration resulted when a larger parcel was subdivided in 2019–2021 and that right-of-way dedication will reduce the lot area slightly below one acre.

Planning staff told the board that without the variance the lot “would not meet minimum front lot width requirements, making construction of a single-family home impossible.” Staff also noted the reduced width resulted from subdividing a larger tract without platting to current city standards and recommended the board consider the conditions included in the staff report if it were to approve a variance.

George Sajid, identified in the meeting as one of the property owners and the applicant, said the owners had engaged a surveyor when the larger tract was divided and did not know the 120-foot frontage requirement would apply. “Unfortunately, we made a mistake,” Sajid said, adding that the owners are not professionals in planning or development and that they believed the lot could support a new house. Sajid said they expect a new home on the site could be worth about $500,000.

Board members discussed whether the lot is similar to existing lots nearby and whether granting a variance would set a precedent for other subdivisions created without following city procedures. Planning staff and other board members said there are older parcels in the city with similar deficiencies resulting from historical subdivision practices and right-of-way dedications, but staff also reiterated that the present configuration was created without following current platting standards.

Board members asked questions about driveway access and whether the neighboring property owner who had submitted an opposition letter would be required to share a circular driveway; planning staff replied that any shared access would be a private agreement between property owners and that the city would generally require each lot to have its own driveway unless a shared driveway were the only feasible option.

Board member Martina McNichols made a motion to approve the variance with the staff-recommended conditions (including that the variance would expire if the acreage or zoning designation of the lot changes); Ron Kils seconded. The motion failed when it did not receive the number of affirmative votes the board required.

The record indicates staff mailed notices to property owners within 200 feet and had received one informational inquiry and two letters of opposition before the hearing. The board closed the hearing and adjourned at approximately 6:50 p.m.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to approve variance with conditions: failed (motion did not receive the required affirmative votes).