Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends permit for oversized accessory structure on Romanenko property
Summary
The Waxahachie Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend a specific‑use permit allowing accessory structures that exceed 1,000 sq ft on a 5.44‑acre single‑family lot owned by Linda Romanenko, following staff presentation and no public opposition at the hearing.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Waxahachie Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday recommended approval of a specific‑use permit to allow accessory structures exceeding 1,000 square feet on a 5.44‑acre single‑family property owned by Linda Romanenko (property ID 175482). Staff said the main house is roughly 2,073 square feet and the proposed accessory building would be about 480 square feet; the application states the accessory building will not include plumbing or electrical and will not be paved.
Staff presenting the case, Caleb, told commissioners: “Staff has received 0 letters of approval for this item.” He said materials for the proposed building would match existing metal roof and siding on the property and that the accessory structure’s location meets the setback requirements in the Waxahachie zoning ordinance. No members of the public spoke for or against the item during the public hearing.
Commissioners asked clarifying questions about consistency with nearby houses and whether the community had similar accessory buildings; staff confirmed that similar accessory structures exist in the neighborhood. After closing the public hearing, a commissioner moved to recommend approval of ZDC‑992025 subject to the conditions in the staff report and to authorize the mayor and city manager to execute documents. The motion was seconded and carried by voice/hand‑raise vote.
The recommendation will move to the city council for a final decision. The commission’s action was procedural: no development permits or construction approvals were issued at the meeting.
