HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 12/17/2025 - RegularMINUTES
CITY OF THE COLONY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2025
After determining that a quorum was present, the Board of Adjustment of the City of The Colony, Texas
convened into Regular Session, which was held on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, at 6:30 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers located at City Hall, 6053 Main Street, The Colony, Texas, at which time the
following items were addressed:
Board Members Present: Constance Yahwak, Dean Byers, Melissa Werner, Kimberly Stillwagon,
Georgiana Bustos,
Board Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Isaac Williams, Planning Director; Allisen Ducay, Planner; Melissa Devin, Planning
Technician and Alan Lathrom, Attorney
1.0 1 CALL REGULAR SESSION TO ORDER
Chair Byers called the Regular Session of the Board of Adjustment meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
2.0 CONSENT AGENDA
2.1 Consider approval of the minutes of the October 15, 2025 Regular Session.
Chair Byers read item 2.1 into record.
Member Yahwak mentioned necessary corrections under section 3.0 item 3.1. Specifically, the
sentence starting with `Ms. Ducay' needing to read `Ms. Ducay responded...' and the sentence
starting with `Staff indicated' needed the correction of `... as well as people...'. Member Stillwagon
added that Member Patterson's last name also needed a correction. Member Yahwak made a
motion to approve the minutes with the corrections proposed, seconded by Member Werner. The
motion carried (5-0)
3.0
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3.1
SE25-0003 — 7200 Loving Court — Detached Garage
Conduct a public hearing, discuss and consider a special exception to (1) Section l OB -100 (e)(2)
[Regulations and Design Guidelines for Accessory Structures] to allow lot coverage of 41 %
where 40% is the maximum lot coverage for principal and accessory structures in the SF -4
district; (2) Section l OB -400 (b) [Regulations and Design Guidelines for Accessory Structures] to
allow a detached garage to be located in the side yard where no detached garages shall occupy
space in the front or side yard. The subject site is located at 7200 Loving Court within the Single -
Family 4 (SF -4) Zoning District.
Chair Byers read Public Hearing Item 3.1 into record.
Ms. Ducay presented the staff report.
Member Werner asked if there was currently a garage on the property.
Ms. Ducay responded that there was and that if the board had any more specific questions about that, she
would let the property owner address them.
Chair Byers asked if there was a difference in the height of the roof between the structures.
Ms. Ducay responded that it was less than the primary structure and meets the height requirement (16ft) at
15ft Bin.
Member Yahwak asked how many of the surrounding properties with similar structures had been
approved.
Ms. Ducay responded that the permitting status on the surrounding structures was not relevant to this case
because we consider the projects on a case-by-case basis and would be approved on its own merit.
Chair Byers asked if there were any other questions for Staff.
Chair Byers opened the public hearing at 6:40pm.
Member Yahwak asked if the applicant wanted to come forward.
Ms. Ducay stated that the applicant was willing to step forward if they had any questions.
Member Yahwak said she thought it was necessary to come forward in case they did have any questions.
Mr. Ron Springer (the applicant) approached the mic and stated his name and address for the record.
He asked what kind of questions they had.
Member Werner asked Mr. Springer to explain why he felt he needed an additional structure when he
already had a garage and a shed which should fulfill his needs to store his car and tools.
Mr. Springer responded that he had 5 vehicles and a 2 -car garage.
Member Yahwak asked if a carport would suffice instead of the proposed structure.
Mr. Springer responded by saying a carport was not allowed in front of a property in The Colony and his
driveway was in front of the house.
Member Werner asked where the 5 cars were currently parked.
Mr. Springer stated they were in the driveway as well as the street.
Member Bustos stated that it looked like Mr. Springer was keeping the tree and bushes on his property.
Mr. Springer replied that he was keeping both and there were 13 or 14 feet in between the bushes and the
tree.
Member Bustos asked if the purpose was to prevent the structure from being seen.
Mr. Springer stated that the bushes themselves were 14 or 15 feet tall so the structure would not be visible
from the alley at all.
Member Bustos clarified that she was just concerned with the removal of the tree and the bushes.
Mr. Springer reiterated that he would not be getting rid of them.
Member Werner stated that she had some big concerns. She said the images they were provided showed
like there was room in the garage to park the cars, but Mr. Springer said he needed to park the cars in the
driveway and on the street. She asked Mr. Springer how they could guarantee that if they approved the
structure, he would use the proposed structure to store his vehicles and not for regular storage as it
appeared that he was using his garage for.
Mr. Springer replied that the items in the garage are things from their move that he has not gone through
} yet. He added that there was still another car that was at his old residence in Little Elm so once the
structure was built, he would be bringing the car over.
Member Werner asked if the car previously mentioned was a 6' vehicle.
Mr. Springer clarified that the car that was in Little Elm was one of the 5 cars he had spoken about before.
Member Werner asked if only one of the 5 cars would be going into the detached garage.
Mr. Springer clarified and said that 2 cars would be going into the detached, 2 in the existing garage and 1
in the driveway.
Chair Byers asked if there was a limit on how many accessory structures a resident can have.
Ms. Ducay responded that there was no limit.
Mr. Williams added that there was a limit on the percentage that the lot could be covered with, including
the house and any additional structure. Whether that be a large home and a small additional structure or a
smaller home with several additional structures.
Member Stillwagon asked if the 41% lot coverage included both the already existing shed and the
proposed structure.
Ms. Ducay responded in the affirmative.
5
Member Stillwagon asked if this was just 1 % over the allowed coverage.
Ms. Ducay said yes.
Member Werner asked if there was any way to narrow the structure to fit the 40% lot coverage.
Mr. Springer responded that a typical 2 car garage is 20 x 20 and they wanted to be able to fit 2 cars
comfortably.
Member Stillwagon stated that she was concerned with the bushes. She added that if anything were to
happen to them, the structure would be in full view of the alley because there was no permanent structure,
such as a fence, to block the view.
Mr. Springer stated that if the bushes were to die, he'd probably put a fence up. He added that his dad
added the bushes and they had been there about 20 years.
Member Stillwagon asked if there was any way they could ask that another structure be built if anything
happens to the bushes.
Mr. Williams replied that unfortunately, there are very few landscaping requirements when it comes to
residential developments. He added that you could ask nicely, but since this is residential and not
commercial, there is not much we can do. He stated that it seemed as though the applicant intends to
1 upkeep the landscaping to prevent visibility from the alley.
1 Member Stillwagon asked if this was still the case even though the structure would be placed by the
driveway.
Mr. Williams reiterated that no, not from a landscaping and screening perspective.
Mr. Springer chimed in and said the alley was on the other side of the trees shown in the exhibits.
Member Werner asked if there had been any complaints from any of the neighbors about the number of
vehicles on the property or if this was just a personal desire to clean up the property.
Mr. Springer responded that it was just a personal desire.
Chair Byers asked if there were any more questions,
Chair Byers closed the public hearing at 6:48pm.
Member Werner made a motion to approve Public Hearing Item 3.1, seconded by Member Bustos.
The motion carried (5-0). The motion was clarified approving the special exception and not a
variance for item 3.1.
There being no further business to come before the Board, Chair Byers adjourned the Regular Session of
the Board of Adjustment at 6:51 pm.
Dean BYors, Chairman
Williams, Planning Director