Richardson zoning board denies homeowner’s request to place storage shed inside side-yard setback

The Richardson Zoning Board of Adjustment voted unanimously Oct. 15 to deny a homeowner’s request to place an 8-foot storage shed inside the 20-foot side-yard setback at 1902 Lilac Court.

Senior Planner Derica Peters told the board that the applicant requested a 14-foot variance from the required 20-foot side-yard setback to allow the structure. Peters said the lot is a corner property in an R-1500M neighborhood, includes a swimming pool, retaining walls and an 8-foot privacy fence, and is partially encumbered by a narrow floodplain that ranges roughly 1.5 to 15 feet along the rear property line. Peters said, “it is staff's opinion that a physical property hardship does not exist and the request should therefore be denied.”

The applicant, Heather Sternwise, said she and her family downsized into the house about 18 months ago and have seen adult children return, creating a need for enclosed storage. “We have 5 children … now they’ve all moved back home … and so now they’ve brought all of their things back,” Sternwise said, arguing the southwest corner of the yard would keep belongings out of public view and protect them from the elements.

Board members questioned staff and the applicant about alternate locations. Staff said they explored placing a smaller shed north of the pool but that area is constrained by pool decking, landscaping, slope and a retaining wall and would require significant work to accommodate the same-size structure. The board discussed whether the driveway could host a shed but staff noted a permanent structure there could impede access to required enclosed two-car parking and minimum driveway dimensions. Staff also noted a three-foot setback along the north property line that might allow a much smaller storage unit, but that option had not been fully explored with the applicant.

After deliberation, a board member moved to deny the variance, stating that enforcing the ordinance would not create an unnecessary hardship and that granting the request would be contrary to the public interest. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously, denying the variance for case V2507. The board earlier continued case V2505 to Nov. 19, 2025, and then adjourned at 7:05 p.m.

The board cited the criteria in the Texas Local Government Code that allow variances only when literal enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship and when granting a variance is not contrary to the public interest. Staff had also noted that a city drainage project in the area could eventually modify floodplain mapping, but that prospective change did not alter staff's recommendation on this application.