Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Accessory Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies Rockwall homeowner’s SUP for oversized accessory structure after strong neighbor opposition
Summary
The council voted 5–2 to deny without prejudice a request by Kevin Sales for a 240‑sq‑ft accessory structure in Fox Chase that exceeded the 144‑sq‑ft by‑right limit; Sales apologized and said he was unaware of the code violation; the denial allows him to work with staff and possibly return with revisions.
The Rockwall City Council denied, by a 5–2 vote, a Specific Use Permit request from Kevin Sales for an accessory structure at 24 Shadydale Lane. Staff told council the existing accessory building measured about 20 by 12 feet (240 sq ft), which exceeds the UDC’s 144‑sq‑ft limit by 96 sq ft. The Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended denial without prejudice (5‑1) and staff reported 89 notices mailed with 11 responses opposed and two in favor.
Kevin Sales apologized to council and said he had the structure delivered and set on skids after buying the home; he said he did not know an SUP or permit was required and that he had paid the $1,000 noncompliant‑structure fee. Council members pressed several practical questions: whether the height complied (staff said it did), whether the unit could be cut down to 144 sq ft, the visual footprint relative to fence lines and yard grading, and whether an HOA governed the property. Councilwoman Jeffers said she was not in favor and would vote against approving the SUP, citing lack of permit and neighbor opposition.
After discussion, the mayor moved to deny the request without prejudice, the motion carried 5–2 with Councilman Thomas and Councilwoman Campbell voting against the denial (i.e., voting to allow it). The denial without prejudice permits the applicant to work with staff to revise the proposal and return to the council if desired.
Direct quotes from the meeting include the applicant’s apology and Councilwoman Jeffers’ statement of opposition. Staff reiterated that if the structure were reduced to 144 sq ft and moved onto a concrete foundation it could be permitted, but the current configuration exceeded the allowable size and had substantial neighbor opposition.
