Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the V2509 topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Zoning board denies variance to expand covered patio at 2672 Poinsettia Drive

Zoning Board of Adjustment · January 21, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board denied a variance request to reduce the rear-yard setback from 25 feet to 14 feet for a covered patio at 2672 Poinsettia Drive, with staff concluding the applicant did not demonstrate the high threshold of unique hardship required for a variance.

The Richardson Zoning Board of Adjustment denied variance V25-09, which sought to allow a 14-foot rear-yard setback in lieu of the required 25 feet to expand an attached covered patio at 2672 Poinsettia Drive. Senior planner Derek Peters told the board staff concluded the application did not demonstrate the special-property hardship required for a variance under the Texas Local Government Code and recommended denial; the board voted to deny the request unanimously.

Peters described the lot as an irregular 0.2-acre "eyebrow" lot with an existing integrated 102-square-foot covered patio and a 3,500-square-foot house. He reviewed the five statutory criteria for variances and said staff's analysis found remaining developable area on the lot and that other lots in the subdivision have similar shapes and depths, leading staff to conclude a physical property hardship was not demonstrated.

Applicants and neighbors said the lot geometry and the sloping rear yard produce a practical limitation: the existing 6-foot-deep patio cannot accommodate a table, chairs and a grill, and the usable buildable area is a narrow triangular wedge. One applicant said, "we do feel like the... we believe the 25 foot setback does create a hardship because of the hard corners of the roofline of our house." Support letters and neighbors in favor were noted, but staff said those do not satisfy the variance standard.

After extended questioning about alternatives, attachment and grade, a board member moved to deny V25-09 on the grounds that enforcing the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship; another member seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The denial means the applicants may rework alternatives that comply with the 25-foot setback or pursue a nonattached option consistent with code.