Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Height Exception topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustment denies height exception request at 8711 Bluff Ridge Trail
Summary
The Lago Vista Board of Adjustment unanimously denied a homeowner’s request to increase a maximum height by about 8 feet 9 inches at 8711 Bluff Ridge Trail, concluding the application relied mainly on cost-based hardship and did not demonstrate the unique property conditions required under city code; the board also added a 12-month restriction on rehearing unless material facts change.
The Lago Vista Board of Adjustment unanimously denied a special height-exception request for a property at 8711 Bluff Ridge Trail during its Jan. 5, 2026 meeting.
The board’s action came after a staff presentation, extended questioning, testimony from the applicant and multiple neighbors, and debate over whether special exceptions and variances should be judged under the same code standards. Development Services Director Jordan told the board the city attorney had advised that, for deliberative purposes, the special-exception height request is treated the same as a variance and thus must meet the variance criteria in chapter 14, section 11.20 of the Lago Vista code of ordinances. Jordan also noted staff received two letters of opposition and one letter in favor.
Applicant Curtis Atkins told the board he and his wife bought the house recently and proposed adding living/workshop space by raising the roofline on the existing garage because the consolidated back lot sits on a granite slab that would require “explosive excavation at a pretty substantial cost” to build out. “It’s really just kind of a matter of circumstance,” Atkins said, arguing the proposed approach would minimize excavation and expense.
Neighbors who live adjacent to the property submitted packets and photos opposing the change. Sally Griffith, a co-owner of the parcel immediately adjacent, said the application lacked the supporting evidence required under the variance standards and argued the two-story addition would intrude on their views and privacy. “The special exception to increase height…to almost 24 feet on the existing home…is going to make a very large two-story addition,” Griffith said, noting she and other long-term residents fear the request could set a precedent in an area zoned R-1S for mostly one-story homes.
During deliberations, board members focused on whether Atkins had proven a non-self-imposed, non-pecuniary hardship tied to a unique property condition — the factors the code requires for a variance. One board member argued the applicant’s justification appeared primarily financial and not tied to a unique physical hardship of the lot. The motion to deny was amended to add that the denial would stand for a minimum of 12 months before the applicant could return, unless significant material facts in the application change; staff had recommended including that period to ensure consistent administrative handling under the cooling-off provision in the code.
The board voted unanimously to deny the request and to apply the 12-month return period. The denial means the applicant may not refile an identical request during that timeframe unless new, materially different evidence is presented. The board also considered but did not grant any immediate administrative direction to staff beyond recording the motion’s outcome.
What happens next: The applicant may revise the proposal and resubmit if he provides new evidence that addresses the variance criteria in section 11.20; otherwise the denial will stand for the 12-month period the board specified.
