Planning commission tables South Hampton Road rezoning after resident objections; applicant absent

The DeSoto Planning and Zoning Commission on Jan. 14, 2025 voted to table consideration of case Z1534-24, a request to rezone 1404 and 1406 South Hampton Road (tracts 7.1 and 8.1 of the John Lewis survey, abstract 774) from agricultural to single-family attached, until the commission's meeting on Feb. 11, 2025.

The zoning request, presented by planning staff, would permit the site's redevelopment into a 16-lot single-family attached (townhome) community on roughly 2.96 acres south of East Parkerville Road and north of the Desoto/Glen Heights city limit. Staff told commissioners the proposed use is consistent with the city's 2024 comprehensive plan designation of medium-density residential but that a required site plan and a front-yard setback deviation (the applicant proposes a 20-foot front setback that does not comply with the SFA district standard) would require further review; the setback issue would need a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment if the council approves the rezoning.

Why it matters: Rezoning the parcels to single-family attached would allow townhome development on a parcel now zoned agricultural and would change the regulatory path for future development (site plan requirements, potential ZBA variance for setback). Neighbors said the change could affect neighborhood character, traffic and property upkeep; the commission delayed action to allow the applicant an opportunity to respond to those concerns.

Staff presentation and site context Jordan Williams, a planning staff presenter, described the property as two combined lots totaling about 2.96 acres on the east side of South Hampton Road. The site plan provided to the commission shows 16 attached units with an internal alley, and staff said sidewalks and alleys are required in the city's residential districts. Williams said the proposed use aligns with the comprehensive plan's medium-density designation and that staff mailed 62 notices; staff recorded no returned responses in favor or in opposition.

Director of Development Services Renard Brewer (referred to in the record as Mr. Brewer) told commissioners the site plan was submitted only as a conceptual layout to help evaluate whether 16 attached units were feasible at this location, and he noted an existing metal building on the southwest corner of the site that would likely be removed if the development proceeds. He also flagged that the proposed 20-foot front-yard setback is not compliant with the SFA district and would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment after council action.

Public comments and concerns Three residents spoke during the public comment period. Darius Raynor, president of the homeowners association for the neighborhood immediately north of the site, said his community had no problem with single-family detached homes but opposed attached townhomes. Raynor said his experience as president of a nearby townhome HOA led him to believe townhomes often become rental properties and that upkeep can fall to associations: "we are firmly against these multifamily attached townhomes," he said.

Resident Gloria Jernigan said the subject property backs up to her Hampton Metals subdivision and described ongoing site issues she attributed to the current owner: livestock on the site, overgrown vegetation encroaching on homeowners' fences, and a blocked walking trail. Jernigan said those conditions make access and maintenance difficult and expressed worry about the quality of future occupants and property upkeep.

Tanya Watson Rose asked whether the proposed units would be rentals or owner-occupied; staff said that information is not part of the zoning review and the city does not require a developer to disclose intended tenure in the zoning process.

Applicant absence and staff contact Commissioners and staff noted the applicant and a property representative were not present to answer questions. Brewer said staff had notified the applicant by phone and email and had asked that someone attend; he told the commission he had emailed the applicant earlier the same day asking them to appear.

Commission discussion and outcome Commissioners expressed differing views: several said the rezoning request did not appear problematic on its face but that residents' concerns merited direct answers from the applicant. One commissioner said DeSoto needs a variety of housing types; another suggested the commission could consider denial or a continuance if the applicant failed to appear. After discussion, Vice Chair Brooks moved to table the matter to the commission's first meeting in February; Commissioner LaRue seconded. The chair announced the motion passed and the item was tabled to the Feb. 11, 2025 meeting so the applicant could attend and address neighbors' concerns.

Next steps The commission's tabling means no formal recommendation will go to city council at this time. If the applicant returns and the commission ultimately recommends approval, the council would decide whether to adopt the rezoning; if adopted, the applicant would then need to submit the required site plan and seek a setback variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the proposed 20-foot front yard if the SFA standard is different.

Votes at a glance - Motion to table consideration of case Z1534-24 until Feb. 11, 2025. Moved by Vice Chair Brooks; seconded by Commissioner LaRue. Outcome: tabled (voice vote; chair announced motion passes). No roll-call tally was recorded in the meeting transcript.

Proper names and references Case: Z1534-24. Property owner (as stated in the staff report): Rodolfo Carrillo. Applicant/consultant listed in staff report: Southland Consulting Engineering. Neighborhood: Hampton Metals. Adjacent jurisdiction: City of Glen Heights. Comprehensive plan: DeSoto Comprehensive Plan (2024). Zoning ordinance sections referenced by staff: Chapter 7, section 7.6 and Chapter 9, section 9.68 (zoning board/variance provisions). Texas Open Meetings Act (notice that public comments on non-agenda items cannot be acted on by the commission).

Contact and appearance notes Staff advised that notices previously mailed (62 addresses) met state and local requirements; staff said no returned responses were recorded. Residents who live outside the 200-foot notice area said staff's reduced notification distance left them outside the initial mailing; the commission indicated it would give the applicant the chance to return with information and encouraged residents to prepare questions for the follow-up hearing.

(Reported from the Jan. 14, 2025 meeting of the DeSoto Planning and Zoning Commission.)