Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dallas Board of Adjustment denies request to formalize existing accessory unit at 9411 Redondo Drive
Summary
The Board of Adjustment denied without prejudice an application to recognize an accessory dwelling unit at 9411 Redondo Drive after finding the applicant had not met the burden of proof on historic use and permitting records.
The Dallas Board of Adjustment on March 18 denied without prejudice an application (BDA245‑031) seeking a special exception to allow an additional dwelling unit (ADU) at 9411 Redondo Drive.
The board voted 5‑0 to deny the applicant’s request after members said there was insufficient documentary evidence that the detached structure had been an ADU in prior decades and that city permit records did not support the owners’ claim that the building had been permitted as living quarters.
The application was presented by architect Stuart Threadgold on behalf of property owners Edgar Vidal, David Nirozzi and Guadalupe Vidal. Threadgold told the board he had been retained to convert what the buyers believed was an existing ADU and said sales materials and conversations with the prior listing agent had represented the rear building as a guest house. “When we saw the house, we fell in love with the house … we saw a guest house in the back,” homeowner Edgar Vidal said during public testimony.
City staff told the board their permitting records showed a detached structure on the lot but that it had appeared in earlier records as a garage; staff said there was no building permit on file permitting the structure as an ADU. Board members noted the owners later obtained an approved addition for the main house that increased the main house square footage to 3,188; staff said that approved addition, while not yet built, is counted for purposes of the code calculation. The applicant said the ADU footprint is 796 square feet and that the historic main-house footprint had been listed at 2,123 square feet in older records. Based on the permit history and the conflicting records, several board members said the applicant had not met the required burden of proof.
Board member Michael Hopkovich moved to deny the application without prejudice; Dr. Emmanuel Glover seconded. The board chair recorded a 5‑0 vote to deny. The board’s decision means the applicants may return later with additional evidence. The board administrator will mail formal notice of the action to the applicant.
Votes at a glance: BDA245‑031 (9411 Redondo Drive) — Motion to deny without prejudice passed 5‑0. The board’s reasons emphasized lack of documentary proof that the detached building was an ADU and inconsistent permitting records.
Context and next steps: Applicants were advised they may return with additional documentary evidence (historic photos, prior permits, affidavits or other proofs) if they wish to reapply. Staff and the board also noted that any change in the main-house footprint that is not built could affect future compliance if the approved addition is not constructed and inspections do not verify the work.
