Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews request to retain former ADU as storage at 505 Thompson Road
Summary
At a June 10 work session, planning staff outlined a request to legalize a 420 ft² accessory structure at 505 Thompson Road that was built without permits and once contained ADU features; staff found no unnecessary hardship and board members pressed questions about timing, permits and enforcement.
The Irving Board of Adjustment heard staff describe a variance request for 505 Thompson Road at its June 10, 2026 work session. Planning staff said the accessory structure — about 420 square feet and roughly 15–16 feet tall — was built without permits and once included features that made it an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) before those components were removed.
Haley Riddick, a planning staff member, told the board that the city issued a notice of violation in November 2025 and that aerial imagery shows the structure as early as 2023. "So this was given off to us because the applicant wanted to keep it as an ADU," Riddick said, summarizing the applicant’s prior request and the reason the zoning case reached staff.
The staff report recommends denial on the basis that there is "no unnecessary hardship," which is the legal standard the board must weigh under state law. Riddick said that because of the structure’s height it requires a 9-foot side-yard setback under the ordinance but currently sits at about 6'2", prompting the variance request.
Board members pressed staff on several enforcement and precedent questions, including whether the structure’s construction date is known and whether a variance can be made conditional. Staff said the build date is uncertain because no permits were filed and that the earliest clear aerial evidence is 2023. On conditioning, staff and counsel explained that a variance, if approved, makes the setback legal but the owner would still need to pull building permits and pass inspections to complete permitting: "When they already built it, we're doing that in reverse," one board member said during the exchange.
Several members voiced concern about whether granting after-the-fact variances encourages permit avoidance. One committee member asked, "Are we rewarding bad behavior?" and participants discussed that removal is the alternative to approval in some denied cases.
Staff also explained that some hardship tests in state law — such as an appraisal-based financial test — are difficult to apply to accessory buildings and may not be relevant in this case. No public supporters or opponents were recorded for this work-session presentation.
No formal action was recorded at the work session; staff completed the presentation and the board moved on to the next agenda item.
