The Board of Adjustment last week denied a Bouldin Creek property owner’s request for a variance that would have allowed him to continue with his plans to construct a dwelling on his lot. With their denial, board members also questioned how the owner, Tyler Pate of
Pate’s construction of a two-story building at the corner of his property was the issue. Before construction, Pate had filed for the necessary paperwork and things were, until November, in order. Then Pate’s real estate agent, Kevin Cordova, who also represented Pate at the hearing, tried to arrange for Pate to install a second utility meter on the building. This raised a red flag with city officials who, because they were inspecting the property as an accessory building, had until that point signed off on the project.
According to the Bouldin Creek Neighborhood plan, the governing document in this case, the smallest-sized lot that can meet the requirement for residential two-family use is 7,000 square feet. Pate’s lot is 6,250 square feet.
A handful of neighborhood residents stood to speak in opposition to Pate’s building. Brad Patterson, the chair of the Bouldin Creek Neighborhood Association zoning committee, set the tone. “When we look at this it appears that whether, unintentional or not…it kind of seems like an end-run around the code.” After dismissing notions of hardship—a required finding for the board to find in favor of Pate—Patterson went on to point out that his neighborhood’s biggest concern is that “by granting this variance it would open the door to all of the other properties in the neighborhood that are under 7,000 square feet.”
“The impact in some way is less about this one parcel and more about (neighborhood policy).”
Bouldin Creek Resident Sal Salinas focused on the appearance of impropriety as his issue. “They actually applied for a permit for an accessory structure. They are now trying to change it,” he said. “This was probably the intent from the get-go…This is not good for our neighborhood.”
For his part, board member Jeff Jack seemed mystified about how Pate continued win approvals as the process moved forward. “Looking at the inspection report, there were…five mechanical inspections of the site. I’m just very curious…obviously somebody had to notice that there’s bathrooms and there’s (a) kitchen here. Why wasn’t it red tagged then?”
Board member Michael von Ohlen said, “To me this is a second dwelling. I don’t feel comfortable with it and I don’t support it. As a general contractor…I take personal offense when I see this type of thing transpiring. People need to do their homework before they go out and start developing here…I’m a pro-property rights kind of guy, but some of these smaller neighborhoods are just not set up for this type of…construction.”
After a unanimous vote against his client, Cordova stuck around to see what his next steps are. City officials told him that they’d have to figure out how Pate’s building could pass code as an accessory structure.
In Patterson’s mind, the original purpose of the structure was clear. “It seems like it was set-up to be a dwelling unit,” he said. As for the future of Pate’s property, Patterson seemed to have mixed feelings.
“They basically can have a building of that size. They can’t quite have those uses. If you look elsewhere in the neighborhood, eventually someday it will be a rental unit,” he said, adding “but it won’t be a legal one.”