Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 05/20/2026 - RegularMINUTES CITY OF THE COLONY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2026 lAfter 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, May 20, 2026 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: Dean Byers, Melissa Werner, Kimberly Stillwagon, Georgiana Bustos and Matthew Sanders Board Members Absent: Constance Yahwak, Christopher Patterson 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 J CITIZEN INPUT 3.0 CONSENT AGENDA 3.1 Consider approval of the minutes of the January 21St Regular Session. Chair Byers read item 3.1 into record. Member Werner made a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Member Bustos. The motion carried (5-0) 4.0 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4.1 BOA26-0001- 5233 Runyon Drive - Garage Requirement Conduct a public hearing, discuss and consider a variance to Section 13-101(f) [Vehicle Parking - Generally] to allow conversion of a garage where an enclosed, attached or detached garage of not less than 440 square feet in floor area and with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be required for all single-family dwelling uses. The subject site is located at 5233 Runyon Drive within the Single -Family -4 (SF -4) Zoning District 4.2 SE26-0002 - 5829 Baker Drive - Lot Coverage Conduct a public hearing, discuss and consider a Special Exception to Section 1013- 100 (e)(2) [Regulations and Design Guidelines for Accessory Structures] to allow lot coverage of 49% where 40% is the maximum lot coverage for principal and accessory structures in the SF -4 district. The subject site is located at 5829 Baker Drive within the Single -Family 4 (SF -4) Zoning District. 4.3 BOA26-0002 - 2820 Amesbury - Side Yard Variance Conduct a public hearing, discuss and consider 1) Variance from Planned Development 23 (PD23) Tribute (Ord. 2024-2582) to allow a 5 -foot side yard setback where 10 feet are required in the Somerset Village for a proposed patio cover (attached) addition. The subject site is located at 2820 Amesbury within the Somerset Village of the Tribute Planned Development (PD -23). Chair Byers read Public Hearing Item 4.1 into record. `J Mr. Williams presented the staff report. Member Bustos asked for clarification on what constitutes a hardship. Mr. Williams provided some details and clarification on hardships. Mr. Lathrom provided further detail based on Section 21-103 of the Code of Ordinances Member Werner asked about the percentage of the completion of the project. Mr. Williams stated that staff could only observe the exterior of the structure and had noticed the garage door had been removed. Member Werner asked if there would be additional people moving into the home or if this was an additional room to just add more space to the already existing structure. Member Stillwagon asked what the City's next steps would be if this request was denied. Mr. Williams provided an answer. Member Bustos asked for more clarification on hardships. Mr. Williams responded to her question. Chair Byers asked about the driveway at the back of the home. Mr. Williams explained the layout of the home. Chair Byers opened the public hearing at 6:47pm. Yolanda Nava, the neighbor of the property at 5233 Runyon Drive, stepped forward. Mrs. Nava expressed her support for the family and the project. Member Bustos asked if the daughter of the applicant was already living there before the conversion took place. Mrs. Nava responded in the affirmative. Member Werner asked the same question and provided details as to why headcount was a concern from a city's perspective. Mrs. Nava stated that the daughter has always lived there but had a baby which required more space so the garage was converted to accommodate for that. Member Sanders asked how many vehicles were on the property. Mrs. Nava stated that there was 4. Member Bustos asked if some of those vehicles were parked in the back. Mrs. Nava responded in the affirmative. Member Bustos asked if the driveway would still be used. Mrs. Nava responded in the affirmative and added that the garage had never been used to store their vehicles. Chair Byers asked how long the homeowners had lived at the home. Mrs. Nava stated that they have lived there for over 20 years. Violeta Jimenez, a resident of 5233 Runyon Drive approached the mic. She gave a verbal narrative describing the reason why the garage was converted and offered to answer any questions the members may have. Member Bustos made a motion to approve Public Hearing Item 4.1, seconded by Member Stillwagon. The motion carried (5-0). Chair Byers read Public Hearing Item 4.2 into record. Mr. Williams presented the staff report. Member Werner asked about the coverage and the impact it could have on the adjacent property owners. Mr. Williams replied to her questions and gave some examples to provide further clarification. Member Stillwagon asked about the structures of the home that exceeded the lot coverage. Mr. Williams explained that based on the information he was able to obtain, there were certain permits requested where some of the items may have gone beyond the scope of what was originally proposed. Mr. Lathrom added further clarification. Member Stillwagon asked if there were any other concerns aside from the lot coverage. Mr. Williams responded that the request was only addressing the exceeded lot coverage. Member Werner asked what the size of the pergola would need to be in order to meet requirements. Mr. Williams clarified that the pergola only accounted for about 1.5% of the lot coverage and that there would still be roughly 6-7% of other structures exceeding the allowed coverage. Member Bustos asked if there were any concerns regarding drainage. Mr. Williams responded there was none. Chair Byers asked a question regarding the orientation of the structures that were on the property. Mr. Williams provided clarification to Chair Byers' question. Michael Mercurio, neighbor of the applicant on 5829 Baker Drive approached the mic. Mr. Mercurio expressed his concern about the project and the impact it could have on his property. He addressed the board and stated he would be in support so long as he would not be affected in any way. Member Werner responded to Mr. Mercurio and explained that the Board cannot promise or commit to anything relating to this or any other cases. She added that the case being discussed was for the property on 5829 Baker Drive and should Mr. Mercurio have a similar request in the future for his property, that would be separately discussed at that time. Mr. Mercurio reiterated that he just wanted to be sure that he had immunity from what was being done at 5829 Baker Drive. Member Werner repeated that the Board cannot commit to or make any promises as to his property. She added that while she understood his concerns, the topic of the discussion was not his property and the focus needed to remain on the subject property. Chair Byers added that each project is reviewed on a case-by-case basis and that his input is appreciated but as the Board, they are governed to only discuss the subject property. Mr. Mercurio stated that he was given a letter [200 ft. surrounding property letter] and he did not have the time to research the information stated in the letter. Member Bustos replied to Mr. Mercurio and stated that the Board had not sent him the letter but that they needed to move forward since Mr. Mercurio had spoken for far longer than most are allotted during a public hearing. Member Stillwagon asked Mr. Mercurio what he was advocating for and asked for clarification on his position regarding the case. Mr. Mercurio replied that he has not had the time to do research, so he had not formulated an opinion on whether he is for or against the project. He requested that the board postpone the vote but fiuther added that if the Board was going to continue to vote, he would have no choice but to say that he was against the project. Chair Byers addressed Mr. Mercurio and reiterated that the topic was not his property and Member Bustos chimed in to add that they needed to move on. Mr. Williams approached the podium and stated that staff had heard Mr. Mercurio's concerns and that we would reach out to address some of the questions he may still have. He added clarification on what the issues are regarding the subject property and stated that everything, including adjacent property owners and possible impacts, would be taken into consideration while reviewing the case but stated that it is never a guarantee that all parties will be satisfied with the outcome. Member Werner stated that she just wanted to circle back and asked Mr. Williams if there were any other issues that staff could currently identify or foresee regarding the excess lot coverage on the subject property to either the City or to the adjacent property owners. Mr. Williams replied that the DRC had reviewed the project and that it was understood that there was no immediate concern. He added that while the proximity to the adjacent property owners was a concern, it would need to be addressed in a separate meeting and with a separate request. Member Stillwagon asked Mr. Williams what the City's recourse would be should the request be denied. Mr. Williams responded that the City would need to evaluate that internally to determine what the next course of action would be. Mr. Lathrom addressed the Board and clarified that the request isn't solely for the pergola, rather, it was to extend the lot coverage allowance since the subject property had exceeded the allowed by 9.56%. Gloria Keiderling, the property owner of 5829 Baker Drive, approached the mic. Mrs. Keiderling provided some context and background on the history of all of the structures of the home. Member Werner asked Mrs. Keiderling to provide further detail on how they got to the 49.56% lot coverage. Mrs. Keiderling provided additional details and clarification. Chair Byers closed the Public Hearing at 7:52pm. Member Werner made a motion to approve Public Hearing Item 4.2, seconded by Member Bustos. The motion carried (5-0). Chair Byers read Public Hearing Item 4.3 into record. Mr. Groff presented the staff report. Member Werner asked if there were any other homes that had had side -yard use. Mr. Groff replied that based on permits and site visits, there was one home that staff observed that had requested to place a deck but while researching that property, it was found that there was a pergola and it was unknown as to how it got there or whether the proper permits were pulled for that project. Member Stillwagon asked Mr. Groff why he was advocating for Master Development. Mr. Groff responded by explaining that Master Development or Matthew Southwest should be the one to review the issues since they are the ones responsible for maintaining the integrity of the development and what's crafted into the ordinance. He further added that it makes more sense for this to be reviewed as a whole rather than individually. Member Werner asked if it was possible for someone passing by to distinguish homes that had activated the side -yard for use. Mr. Groff responded that while difficult, it wasn't impossible as staff had done a site visit and identified 3. Member Bustos asked Mr. Groff to confirm whether he had stated that there was 3 homes that had activated the space. Mr. Groff responded in the affirmative. Member Werner remarked that she felt it was unusual that the HOA had asked the City for their review and input on the matter. Chair Byers asked if the proposed changes were in line with the standards of the development. Mr. Groff stated that the changes proposed would fit with the current aesthetic and that the HOA also believed that to be the case. Mr. Williams provided additional context and clarification on what the request was and stated that the BOA is not for the purpose of changing policy but to determine whether or not a hardship exists that would warrant the relief from the code. Member Stillwagon asked Mr. Groff if staff determined there was a hardship. Mr. Groff responded by saying staff could not determine a hardship. 7 Mr. Lathrom added further clarification to that question. Chair Byers opened the Public Hearing at 8:13pm David Souza, the contractor and a representative of the case stepped forward. Mr. Souza also was on a virtual call with the property owner due to being out town. Mr. Souza gave some context and provided some history on the development. Member Werner asked who currently owns the home. Mr. Souza responded that the homeowners were Christopher and Kimberly Heavner. Member Werner then asked what other reason the homeowner had for the request. Mr. Souza provided a response to Member Werner's question. Member Bustos replied to Mr. Souza's response and stated that in a Master Plan, the developers are very intentional and very specific about how a land use is supposed to be so she believed that if there were to be an issue, it would be better addressed by the Master Plan Community rather than the board. Member Werner asked if there was an immediate need for this approval or if they were willing to have this reviewed by the developers. Mr. Souza responded that as the contractor, he did not have a time constraint, but the homeowner did and he referred that question to the homeowner. Mr. Heavner, who was attending virtually over the phone, addressed the Board. He provided more details and their reason for their request. Member Stillwagon asked about HOA vs. City regulations. Mr. Groff responded that the HOA has their own standards to enforce and the City does not and cannot by state law, enforce otherwise. Member Werner asked if staff was aware of whether or not Matthew Southwest was contacted regarding this request. Mr. Groff responded that it was unknown. Mr. Lathrom explained more about HOA and their regulations and how they work. Dan Rainey, a City Council member, and the Liaison for the Board of Adjustment stepped forward. Mr. Rainey provided even further context and additional details on how the HOA boards operate and more history on the development. He ended by stating that he too believed this would be better addressed by allowing the Master Plan to be revised and address the entire development as opposed to a single property. Mr. Heavner asked Mr. Rainey for clarification on the Board and the members. Mr. Rainey responded to Mr. Heavner's question. Mr. Williams reminded the Board that their roles were to determine if a hardship exists and not to change policy. Member Stillwagon asked what a hardship was considered. Mr. Williams provided clarification to her question. Member Werner asked Mr. Williams for further explanation. Mr. Lathrom addressed the Board and gave examples of what a hardship is to give the Board a better idea of what they are voting for. Member Bustos asked if revising the Master Plan would prevent cases with this specific request from coming to the board. Mr. Groff responded in the affirmative. Mr. Williams described the process of rezoning and explained that it is rare for an individual dwelling site to trigger the rezoning process. He added that those types of cases are better done on a bigger scale to address the issue. Mr. Groff provided additional context and stated that the review would have to be done in such a way where the properties would not need to be replatted. Chair Byers closed the Public Hearing at 8:58pm. Member Stillwagon made a motion to deny Public Hearing Item 4.3, seconded by Member Bustos. The motion carried (4-1). There being no further business to come before the Board, Chair Byers adjourned the Regular Session of the Board of Adjustment at 9:01 pm.