Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Use Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing on special‑use permit for large accessory structure at 3706 Castle Drive continued to Sept. 24
Summary
A public hearing for a special‑use permit to allow a 1,200‑sq‑ft accessory garage at 3706 Castle Drive was continued to Sept. 24 after staff reported outstanding permits, a failed inspection and removal of unapproved asphalt; the applicant told staff he plans to reduce pavilion size.
The Rowlett Planning and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing on a Special Use Permit (SUP) request for 3706 Castle Drive to 7 p.m. on Sept. 24, 2024, after staff reported outstanding permitting and inspection issues and members expressed a desire to let the applicant address those items.
The SUP was filed by John Ericsson Hilser (applicant named in the agenda) to allow an enclosed accessory structure larger than 500 square feet — specifically a proposed 1,200‑square‑foot garage — on a 2.4‑acre lot zoned SF‑40. Staff recapped prior meetings and said the site contains a principal dwelling of more than 2,600 square feet and several accessory structures. Staff reported that the applicant had placed an unapproved asphalt surface; a permit for concrete has since been pulled but the initial inspection did not pass and the applicant has been asked to remove unapproved asphalt and correct the work before pouring concrete. "He has a permit that's been issued now. It just needs to pass inspections," staff said.
Staff and commissioners also discussed other existing and proposed accessory structures on the lot. The applicant told staff via email that he plans to downsize a previously proposed pavilion from approximately 1,400–1,600 square feet to about 500 square feet and that pavilion plans will be submitted next week. Staff reminded the commission that approval of an SUP would not exempt the applicant from securing required building permits for construction already underway or complete.
Staff reported limited public response: three emailed statements opposing the project were submitted after the prior meeting; one adjacent neighbor recorded video support. Commissioners weighed options — deny (which would require the applicant to reapply and pay fees), approve with conditions, or continue the hearing to allow the applicant to resolve outstanding work. Commissioner Crisby moved to continue the public hearing to 7 p.m. on Sept. 24; Miss Williams seconded the motion and the commission voted unanimously to continue. The hearing remains open and will reconvene on that date.
