Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies setback variance for 2900 Byrd Street storm shelter after debate over trees and safety
Summary
A zoning board voted 3-2 to deny a variance request to reduce the 50-foot front setback at 2900 Byrd Street so a company could build a 500-square-foot employee storm shelter; staff recommended denial, citing feasible alternatives and tree-protection options, while the applicant argued the chosen location minimizes evacuation time.
A zoning board denied a property owner’s request to reduce the 50-foot front setback at 2900 Byrd Street so the owner could build a 500-square-foot storm shelter between existing office and manufacturing buildings, voting 3-2 after hearing competing claims about tree protection, drainage and employee safety.
Staff recommended denial, saying the application did not meet the variance criteria required under the city zoning code. In its presentation, staff cited Article 6, section 6.4(b)(2) (front-yard setback standards) and the variance findings under section 7.7.3, noted that the site is roughly 140.9 acres, and said other feasible locations exist that would meet the 50-foot requirement. "Staff recommends denial of the requested variance," the staff presenter said during the report.
The applicant’s representative argued the proposed location is the safest for employees because it sits between the two work buildings and is on higher ground. The presenter described multiple mature live oaks on the parcel and onsite utilities and said placing the shelter in the large grass area south of Wilbur Street would require workers to cross a drainage ditch and descend about 12 feet, slowing egress during severe weather. "The proposed building is a storm shelter, and it needs to be near the work areas so that employees can get to it quickly," the presenter said. The applicant asked the board to limit any variance strictly to the storm-shelter structure rather than to the whole property: "We're not looking to reduce the setback wholesale," the presenter said.
Staff pushed back on the applicant’s claim that the trees constitute an "extraordinary and exceptional" condition unique to the property, noting that other nearby parcels also contain protected trees and that impacts can be mitigated by submitting a letter from a certified arborist or implementing tree-protection measures during site plan review.
Board members asked whether an approval would apply across the entire 140.9-acre site or only to this structure; staff and the applicant both said the variance could be conditioned to apply to the storm shelter only. Members also asked whether alternative site plans had been submitted; staff said it had not reviewed alternates. A member raised questions about ownership and easements for on-site utilities; the presenter said responsibility varied by utility, with power becoming private at the service point and communications likely lacking an easement.
After discussion the board moved to deny the variance. During roll call the votes were recorded as: Mr. Calhoun — yes; Miss Clauser — no; Mr. O'Callaghan — no; Mr. Simmons — yes; Miss Morrow — yes. Staff reminded the board that four affirmative votes are required to approve a variance; the motion to deny carried 3-2 and the application was denied.
The applicant’s options after the denial were not discussed on the record; the board closed the item and moved on.
