Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Height Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies Belmont Avenue height variance for duplex project, citing residential proximity slope
Summary
Baldwin Associates sought a 19-foot variance to building height at a Belmont Avenue duplex site; the board denied the request without prejudice, citing the residential proximity slope and neighborhood impacts.
On Feb. 20, 2025 the Dallas Board of Adjustment denied without prejudice a height-variance request filed by Baldwin Associates for a duplex development on Belmont Avenue (BDA245-027). The variance sought to exceed the residential height limit to allow rooftop mechanical equipment and to match heights of recently built duplexes in the neighborhood.
Applicant representative Rob Baldwin described the lot as unusually narrow and shallow compared with nearby properties, saying the lot is roughly 84 feet deep while nearby lots are deeper and larger. Baldwin said the requested height was driven by the need to place mechanical equipment on the roof and to construct units similar in size to newer duplexes on the block. Baldwin said the MF-2 zoning allows 36 feet of height but that the residential proximity slope (RPS) limits allowed height on this lot.
Neighbors opposed the request. Property owner and nearby resident Daniel Bressler told the board that granting a 19-foot variance to permit a 45-foot structure “would undermine the integrity of zoning laws in the area” and would cast excessive shadow and invade privacy for adjacent properties. Bressler said several houses on adjacent streets that appear tall were built earlier and the board should not treat them as precedent for this lot.
Board members debated whether the unusual lot shape and depth constituted a property-specific hardship that would justify the variance. Several members suggested alternatives — lowering floor-ceiling heights, relocating mechanical equipment to ground level within secured enclosures, or reducing the mechanical room height — as means to reduce requested building height. After discussion the board voted 3-1 to deny the variance without prejudice; the motion to deny noted that the board did not find the applicant had demonstrated that a literal enforcement of the code would result in unnecessary hardship on the property.
