Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Accessory Structure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Neighbor tells Rowlett commission shed at 6602 Warwick Drive is damaging her home and alleges long-standing inaction

City of Rowlett Planning and Zoning Commission · January 13, 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

Resident Denise Rollett told the commission that a neighboring accessory building at 6602 Warwick Drive encroaches on setbacks, lacks permits and gutters, and has caused foundation and brick damage; she said prior city orders were not enforced and requested documentation and testing results.

During the citizen-input period on Jan. 13, resident Denise Rollett told the Rowlett Planning and Zoning Commission that an accessory building at 6602 Warwick Drive encroaches to a 0-foot setback, was constructed without required permits, and has caused structural damage to her home.

Rollett said the shed—built around 2004–05 and later expanded without permits—has no gutters and has allowed water to run toward her property, causing cracked bricks, gaps around window framing and other foundation concerns. She said the structure had been the subject of prior enforcement orders that were not carried out and that, in her view, the city’s handling of the matter had left her family without relief. “This is our house is being destroyed,” she said, asking the commission to review the permits and engineering documents and to provide the testing results by email.

Rollett also noted she has photographs of offensive imagery on the structure and asked rhetorically whether that amounted to a hate crime. She said the property had multiple violations reported over at least four years and requested that the city share all permits and testing records related to the accessory building.

The chair acknowledged her comments during the public-comment period and the commission closed citizen input without taking action at the meeting. Staff did not provide enforcement outcomes on the record during the citizen-input segment and directed the resident to the appropriate channels for follow-up.

Next steps: staff or the appropriate city enforcement division would be the avenue for follow-up; the commission did not take formal action on the complaint during the meeting.