HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/06/2026 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments(*Or/44144
CITY OI^ Coij.I.(.m ST.THON Minutes
Home of7xasAd*1 University* Zoning Board of Adjustments
Regular Meeting
January 6, 2026
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Bill Lartigue, Justin Collins, Michael Martinez, and
James Hutchins
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jaymeson Hacker
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Director of Planning & Development Services Molly
Hitchcock, Staff Planner Gabriel Schrum, Assistant City Attorney David Purnell, Technology
Service Specialist Lillian Wells, Administrative Support Specialist Kristen Hejny, and Staff
Assistant Jocelyne Mora.
1. Call meeting to order.
Chairperson Lartigue called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Agenda Items
2.1. Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting minutes:
• October 7, 2025
Board Member Collins moved to approve the meeting minutes from October 7, 2025,
Board Member Martinez seconded the motion, the motion passed 4-0.
2.2. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding variance to the
maximum size of accessory structures per the Unified Development Ordinance Section
6.5.B.1 `Accessory Structures,' for the property located at Woodland Acres, Lot 6 (Front
419' of), Acres 1.4445, generally located at 904 Ashburn Avenue. The property is zoned
GS General Suburban. Case #AWV2025-000091.
Staff Planner Schrum presented the item to the Board and stated that the applicant is
requesting an increase in accessory structure size to go beyond the allowed 25% of the
principal structure maximum allowance for a proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).
Staff recommended denial of the request due to the fact that it does not meet the
specified criteria. Specifically:
1. There are no extraordinary conditions affecting the land depriving the
owner of its use.
2. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the enjoyment of a
substantial property right.
January 6, 2026 Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 1 of 3
3. The conditions generally apply to other property in the vicinity.
4. The hardship is a result of the applicant's own actions.
5. That because of these conditions, the application of the UDO would not
effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property.
Chairperson Lartigue opened the public hearing.
Brandon Spears, Applicant, presented to the Board and was available for questions.
Board Member Hutchins asked if the applicant were to build onto their home, would
this allow them to build a bigger accessory dwelling unit.
Staff Planner Schrum confirmed that a remodel of the main structure would increase
the 25% accessory dwelling unit allowance based on the new square footage of the
home.
Board Member Hutchins asked if the applicant could construct an attached garage
similar to neighboring properties.
Board Member Collins seconded clarification on if the properties that were mentioned
in the applicant's presentation were also considered garages and not accessory
dwelling units.
Staff Planner Schrum confirmed that the other properties presented were all if not the
majority permitted as detached garages and utilized in that way; even though some
have existing living spaces in them. The 25% principal structure maximum allowance
is looked at for an accessory dwelling unit utilization. The difference being meeting
its own setback requirements, and impervious cover percentage, for example.
Board Member Martinez asked for clarification that the only major part of it being
considered an accessory dwelling unit is because it would be occupied.
Staff Planner Schrum confirmed that permitting is based on its use as an accessory
dwelling unit. When discussing and reviewing some of the other large accessory
structures with a bedroom and bath, they are reviewed to see what the utilization is.
All residential building plans are looked over when they come in for review.
Board Member Martinez and Board Member Hutchins asked if there are any cases
where staff allow accessory dwelling units permitted over the 25% principal structure
max allowance. If so, was this option given to the applicant.
Staff Planner Schrum confirmed staff does offer a mix of adjustments. A 10%
administrative adjustment to the 25% maximum allowance can be requested but
anything beyond that is the purview of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The
administrative adjustment is always an option but was not necessarily presented due
to the square footage of the proposed accessory dwelling unit in far exceeding the
January 6, 2026 Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 2 of 3
limits of the administrative adjustment.
Mary Wells, 1106 Ashburn Avenue, College Station, spoke in favor of the variance.
Chairperson Lartigue closed the public hearing.
Board Member Martinez stated that the Board must uphold Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) standards.
Board Member Hutchins asks what is being affected, what happens to the UDO down the
line, and what happens to the property in 20 years.
Board Member Martinez requested recommendations from staff on what could be possibly
proposed as conditions.
Assistant City Attorney David Purnell explained that this meeting is the proper legal forum
to decide whether to grant a variance. He noted that the additional 10% beyond the allowed
25% would be considered an administrative adjustment and is within the administrator's
discretion. Staff must follow the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) adopted by the
democratically elected governing body and adhere to the established procedures. Under
Chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government Code, the Board must determine whether
granting a variance would preserve the spirit and intent of the zoning regulations. If the
applicant meets all required criteria, the Board may grant the variance.
Board Member Martinez asked Assistant City Attorney David Purnell if this was either a
yes or no type of circumstance.
Assistant City Attorney David Purnell confirmed.
Board Member Collins stated that the variance does not meet the necessary nine criteria.
Board Member Martinez second that the variance does not meet the necessary nine criteria.
Board Member Collins motioned to deny the variance as it does not meet the
necessary nine criteria, Board Member Hutchinson seconded the motion, the motion
to deny passed 4-0.
3. Adjourn.
The meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
Approved:
G 'a -- J V�",\ Gwy1
Bill Lartigue, Chairperson
C{,o, ow Sign" 0, �,thuj� o� � �� � f�rN✓ CIS ✓
Board Secretary
January 6, 2026 Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 3 of 3