Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Lot Size topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA denies variance request for 3‑acre Skinner Road lot after neighbors raise septic, precedent concerns
Summary
The Williamson County Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously denied a variance May 28 that would have allowed a house on a 3‑acre Skinner Road parcel in RD‑5 zoning, citing minimum acreage and road frontage requirements amid neighbor opposition and evidence of alternate soils and easement issues.
The Williamson County Board of Zoning Appeals on May 28 denied a variance request from property owner Shane Putty that would have allowed development of a 3‑acre lot on Skinner Road in an RD‑5 (5‑acre minimum) zone.
Staff presented the application and site photos. Carolyn Brotherton of Brotherton Land Surveying, representing the Puttys, said the core hardship is the lot size and shape, terrain, and septic placement; she also said a preliminary February 9 soils report identified a secondary soils area for a 2–3‑bedroom homesite and that the applicants are willing to provide an easement if necessary. "We feel that the request is reasonable based on the low impact and that it meets the rural character of Skinner Road," Brotherton said.
Neighbors urged denial. Andrew Lux, a longtime nearby property owner, described steep, rocky terrain and a septic field that crosses onto the Puttys’ parcel and said the applicants bought with knowledge of the zoning and lot limitations. He said the county's infrastructure requirements matter for long‑term consistency: "This requirement does not meet any of them in or have any merit to stand on for changing the standard regulations," he said. Lynda Artemov told the Board, "If you allow 3 acres instead of 5 acres it will set a terrible precedent." Annamarie Donaldson asked the Board to "protect their investment" and decline the variance.
The applicant said they had tried to acquire adjoining acreage but neighbors were unwilling to sell and that they believed a conservative home could fit the lot. Board members questioned whether the lot was knowingly purchased under RD‑5 zoning; staff confirmed the property was zoned RD‑5 when purchased in 2015 and that the current zoning ordinance took effect January 2013. Matthew Roberts moved to deny the variance because the parcel does not meet RD‑5 acreage or road frontage requirements; Andrew Ring seconded, and the motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
The denial preserves the county’s five‑acre minimums for RD‑5 zoning in this area; the applicant may pursue other options, such as acquiring additional acreage or addressing platting/septic easement issues before reapplying.
