Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lucas council denies specific‑use permit for Horseman Drive accessory building
Summary
Council voted to deny a requested specific‑use permit to allow a 1,500 sq ft accessory ‘farmhouse’/art room at 10 Horseman Drive, citing a city rule that prevents leasing part of a property while retaining private use of another portion; the applicants said the building would be used to homeschool their children.
Lucas City Council on April 2 denied a requested specific‑use permit for a 1,500‑square‑foot accessory building at 10 Horseman Drive after members concluded the proposal conflicted with city rental and occupancy rules.
Development Services Director Joe Hilburn told the council the Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended approval with conditions — including demolition of existing accessory buildings and a deed restriction that the accessory unit be used “solely and exclusively by the owner or residents of the property.” During the council hearing Hilburn reiterated the city code prohibition: staff does not permit leasing a portion of a property while the owner retains private use of another portion.
Applicant Carmen Lynn, who identified herself during the public hearing, said the building’s intended use would be to “homeschool our children” and explained the family currently lives in Murphy and leases the existing dwelling on the Lucas parcel. Lynn described using an existing gravel path and a grandfathered driveway to access the accessory building without disturbing the tenant.
Several council members questioned whether the proposed arrangement would effectively split the property into two separate uses. One council member summarized staff’s position: the city allows leasing a whole property to a tenant, but it does not allow owners to lease part of a property and retain private use of an accessory structure. Multiple members urged the applicants that, to comply, they should relocate their residence to the parcel and then reapply if they wished to pursue the building.
After closing the public hearing the council voted on a motion to deny Ordinance 2026‑04‑01043 (the SUP request). The denial motion carried and the council advised the applicants on the code-based paths to compliance.
The council did not adopt any amendment to the recommended Planning & Zoning conditions; the denial was grounded in the city’s leasing/occupancy rules rather than site‑plan technicalities. The public hearing lasted roughly five minutes and produced no other public speakers.
The applicants may pursue other options consistent with local code, including moving their primary residence to the property or revising the proposal to conform with the deed‑restriction conditions specified by Planning & Zoning.
