Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Coverage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richardson zoning board denies 1.8% lot-coverage variance for solar carport at 400 Highbrook Drive
Summary
The Richardson Zoning Board of Adjustment denied a request by property owner Long Van to increase lot coverage to 36.8% to allow a solar carport over a driveway. City staff recommended denial, saying a physical hardship was not present and the carport could be reduced to meet code.
The Richardson Zoning Board of Adjustment on Tuesday unanimously denied a variance request that would have raised the lot-coverage limit at 400 Highbrook Drive from 35% to 36.8% to permit a solar-topped carport.
Derica Peters, senior planner in the city’s Development Services Department, told the board that the house sits on a lot platted in 1968 that is allowed 35% coverage under the zoning code and that staff’s analysis concluded no physical property hardship exists. Peters said staff found the proposed 660-square-foot carport could be reduced by about 203 square feet and noted that the property’s 96-square-foot shed counts toward lot coverage.
Property owner Long Van, who said he owns the house at 400 Highbrook, told the board the carport would allow him to install a solar array without cutting a mature oak tree that shades the only viable rooftop. Van said he had compared lot sizes on nearby blocks and argued his lot is larger than some lots that are allowed higher coverage. He described the proposed structure as a dual-purpose solar carport sized 30 by 22 feet and said a smaller footprint would not deliver the energy backup he seeks.
Board members questioned whether alternatives — smaller carports, different panel manufacturers, rooftop panels on triangular roof planes or a generator — could meet the applicant’s goals. Staff and the applicant agreed that reducing the carport would lower energy output and that some configurations would create structural or safety concerns. Peters told the board that removing the shed would not bring the property into compliance.
Board member Sabrina Bohnsack moved to deny the variance, saying literal enforcement of the ordinance would not produce the necessary hardship for relief; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
The board closed the public hearing and denied variance case V26-03. The applicant was told the board would keep him posted on the outcome and next steps. No appeal or further action was recorded at the meeting.
