Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Height Exception topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lago Vista board denies height exception at 8711 Bluff Ridge Trail after neighbors object
Summary
On Jan. 5 the Lago Vista Board of Adjustment unanimously denied a special‑height exception for 8711 Bluff Ridge Trail, finding the application relied on financial considerations rather than the unique‑property hardship the board applies when evaluating height increases. Neighbors cited privacy, views and precedent concerns.
The Lago Vista Board of Adjustment on Jan. 5 unanimously denied an application to increase the maximum allowable height at 8711 Bluff Ridge Trail after neighbors raised privacy and view concerns and board members said the applicant’s explanation emphasized cost rather than a unique property hardship.
The request, filed as special exception 25‑2904‑SP‑E, sought roughly an 8 feet 9 inches increase above the R‑1 15‑foot maximum to build living quarters/workspace above an existing garage. Development Services Director Jordan told the board the proposed build met setback and site‑plan criteria but required a height exception; staff recorded two letters of opposition and one letter of support in the packet.
Curtis Atkins, the applicant, told the board he was ‘‘not here to upset anybody’’ and described significant site costs — a large granite slab and a drainage easement — that he said made building on the rear lot prohibitively expensive. He called the design a way to minimize excavation and add interior space. Neighbors Sally Griffith and Carolyn Lebec presented packets of photographs and legal citations and argued the application did not demonstrate the unique physical conditions the board must find for a variance or higher‑than‑normal height under the city’s rules. Griffith said the proposal would create a ‘‘very large two‑story addition’’ that would change neighbors’ views and privacy.
During deliberations a board member moved to deny the application, concluding the applicant’s testimony showed financial motives and did not establish the required unique property hardship; the motion was amended to state the denial would stand for a minimum 12 months unless material facts change. The motion carried unanimously, and the application was denied.
The board’s deliberations referenced multiple code sections when explaining the standards it applied, and staff noted the city attorney has advised that, as currently written and interpreted, special exceptions related to height are being reviewed under the same evidentiary considerations as variances pending a code cleanup. Jordan told the board staff will address that code language in a future rewrite.
Next steps: the denial prevents the applicant from returning with the same request for at least 12 months unless there is a substantial change to the facts of the case, per the motion recorded by the board.
