Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZBA MEMBERS Gerardo Arzate, Chairman Kyle Newton, Vice Chairman Kirk Strahan, Member Priscilla Contreras, Member Ramiro Salinas, Member John Herriage, Member Nancy Wells, Member (Alternate) Norberto Brito, Member (Alternate) ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY HALL, 411 W. 8TH ST. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – FIFTH FLOOR July 2, 2025, 8:30 A.M. I. OPENING ITEMS 1. Invocation 2. Pledge of Allegiance Honor the Texas Flag, I pledge allegiance to thee; Texas one State under God, one and indivisible. II. CONSENT ITEMS 3. Motion to approve the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting minutes for June 18, 2025 III. PUBLIC HEARING The Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on the following items: 4. CASE FILE NO. 2025-13-V Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request by Alfonso Herrera, owner, for a variance from Section 14-7-9 (4) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a structure to be built at six feet (6’) rear yard setback instead of the required ten feet (10’) setback in a Special Dwelling District (SPD) zoning district, Lot 10, Block 21, Ratliff Ridge, 8th Filing (9003 Spirit Ave.) 5. CASE FILE NO. 2025-06-V Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request by Christopher Tetley, owner, for a variance from Section 14-7-8 of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow a structure (carport) to be built at zero feet (0’) side yard setback instead of the required fifteen feet (5’) side yard setback in a Single Family-Three (SF-3) District, Lot 56, Block 7, North Park Addition, 9th Filing. (610 E 95th St.) IV. Adjourn  ZBA Members Gerardo Arzate, Chairman Kyle Newton, Vice Chairman Kirk Strahan, Member Henry Enriquez, Member Priscilla Contreras, Member Ramiro Salinas, Member John Herriage, Member Nancy Wells, Member (Alternate) Norberto Brito, Member (Alternate) ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES CITY HALL, 411 W. 8TH ST. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – FIFTH FLOOR June 18, 2025 8:30 A.M. I. Opening Items 1. Invocation 2. Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible. II. Consent Items 3. Motion to approve the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting minutes for June 04, 2025. III. Public Hearing The Zoning Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on the following items: 4. CASE FILE NO. 2025-12-V Open a public hearing to consider approval of the request of Barry Slawson and Cindy Slack, owners, for a variance from Section 14-7-8 (b) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance to allow an accessory building to be built at sixteen inches (16”) side yard setback instead of the required five feet (5’) side yard setback and from Section 14-7-13 to allow said accessory building to be built with a three inch (3”) separation instead of the required six feet (6’) separation from any other structure in a SPD, Special Dwelling District, Lot 13, Block 70, North Park Addition, 21st Filing Replat. (9028 Rice Ave) IV. Adjourn  TO: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DOCKET NO. 2025-12-V SUBJECT: APPLICANT: Cindy Slack, Owner REQUEST: Variance from Section 14-7-8 (e) and Section 14-7-13 (b) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance PROPERTY Lot 13, Block 70, North Park Addition, INVOLVED: 21st Filing Replat (9028 Rice Ave.) Maria Prieto Presents: The applicant, Barry Slawson (owner: Cindy Slack), is requesting a variance for the property at 9028 Rice Ave, zoned SPD. The request is to build a 10 ft. x 16 ft. accessory structure with a 16-inch side yard setback (instead of the required 5 feet) and a 3-inch separation from another structure (instead of the required 6 feet). This seeks exceptions to Sections 14-7-8(e) and 14-7-13(b) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance. Staff found no special conditions justifying the variance request for 9028 Rice Ave and warned it may set a precedent for nearby properties. The proposed reductions in setbacks pose safety risks, limit access, and could impact neighboring properties’ light, air, and runoff. As a result, staff recommends denial. Should the Board choose to approve this request, the Planning staff would recommend adoption with the following conditions: 1. No other structures or additions may be placed side yard setback. 2. That the water runoff from the roof shall be directed away from adjacent neighboring property. 3. That the accessory building shall not be used to conduct business or be used as permanent living quarters. 4. Any electrical connection will need to be tied to main residence. 5. No additional structures, additions or modifications may be made to the structure or property without first contacting the Building Inspections Department, obtaining a building permit, and scheduling the required inspections. Chairman Arzate opened the public portion of the meeting for comments in support or opposition. Mr. Barry Slawson explained the structure would sit next to the porch, by an 8-foot fence, and noted the backyard slope channels runoff to a shared drainage container. He highlighted both pros and cons of his property's alley access and referred to photos for context. Ms. Cindy Slack, property owner approached, citing a retaining wall and stating the site’s slope makes other placements impractical. She confirmed the structure would be anchored and noted that the AC unit on the opposite side restricts alternatives. After no further public comments, the Chairman closed the hearing and invited Board discussion. Member Henry Enriquez asked about staff’s recommended conditions. The Vice Chairman explained these were intended as fair guidance within zoning limits. Member John Herriage raised fire safety concerns, to which Mr. Newton responded that fire-rated features could help satisfy code requirements. The Chairman, hearing no further questions, called for a motion from the Board. Member John Herriage motion to table; Seconded by Kirk Strahan Motion tabled with the following votes: 0 to 7 AYE: Gerardo Arzate, Kyle Newton, Priscilla Contreras, Henry Enriquez, Ramiro Salinas, Kirk Strahan, John Herriage NAY: None Absent: Ø (alternates not included in Absents) Chairman turns to the commission for a motion to adjourn: Member Angie King makes a motion to adjourn; Seconded by member Billy Cleaver Jr. Motion to adjourn approved by the following votes: 0-7 AYE: Gerardo Arzate, Kyle Newton, Priscilla Contreras, Henry Enriquez, Ramiro Salinas, Kirk Strahan, John Herriage NAY: None Absent: There being no further business to come before the commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 a.m. Cheynna Torres, Planning Technician, placed the minutes in the minute book on June 19, 2025 ──────────────────── Chairman, Gerardo Arzate  TO: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FROM: Maria Prieto, Planning Manager SUBJECT: DOCKET NO. 2025-13-V APPLICANT: Alfonso Herrera, Owner REQUEST: Variance from Section 14-7-9 (4) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance PROPERTY INVOLVED: Lot 10, Block 21, Ratliff Ridge, 8th Filing (9003 Spirit Ave) The property involved in this request is located at 9003 Spirit Ave. This site is currently zoned (SPD) Special Dwelling District and is occupied by a single-family residence. The property is surrounded by single family residential development to the north, south, east and west. The applicant is Alfonso Herrera, owner, and the purpose of the request is for a variance to allow an attached structure (porch) to be located on the property with six feet (6’) rear yard setback instead of the ten (10) feet rear yard setback. The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 14-7-9 (4) of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance, which states: Sec. 14-7-9 Rear Yard (4) The minimum required rear yard in a PD, SPD, or MU district shall be established on the site plan or by the amending ordinance. The following criteria as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance are to be used by the Board of Adjustment in evaluating variance requests. The burden of proof in meeting each of these criteria is upon the applicant. A. The variance request is not contrary to the public interest. B. Special conditions exist for the applicant that do not generally exist for others. C. A literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. D. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed, and substantial justice is done. Staff analysis of this request is that there are no special conditions associated with property that do not exist for others in the area. The request to reduce the rear yard setback to six feet (6’) instead of the required ten feet (10’) will create a precedence for the surrounding properties to follow. The property is in an area where there is no alley separating the adjacent housing to the west. Reducing the rear yard setback will create a hazard and hardship to both properties in an event that there is an emergency. In addition, the proposed structure will reduce the amount of light, air or open space for the adjacent property owner. The applicant submitted a building permit request showing a rear setback of six (6’) which is less than the required ten (10’) feet rear yard setback, this permit request is what triggered the variance. The applicant was in the process of constructing the porch with the rear yard setback of five (5’) feet and has already poured the cement slab over the anchors that attach to the porch columns. Staff recommends DENIAL of this request for not satisfying the above variance criteria outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Should the Board choose to approve this request, the Planning staff would recommend adoption with the following conditions: 1. No other structures or additions may be placed within the 10-foot rear yard setback. 2. That the water runoff from the roof shall be directed away from adjacent neighboring property. 3. That the accessory building shall not be used to conduct business or be used as permanent living quarters 4. No additional structures, additions or modifications may be made to the structure or property without first contacting the Building Inspections Department, obtaining a building permit, and scheduling the required inspections. Information in order of inclusion: --Exhibit A – Front Yard Setback --Exhibit B – Site Plan --Area of notification map --Aerial map 87'  TO: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FROM: Maria Prieto, Planning Manager SUBJECT: DOCKET NO. 2025-04-V APPLICANT: Christopher Tetley, Owner REQUEST: Request to remove from table. Variance from Section 14-7-7 of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance PROPERTY INVOLVED: Lot 56, Block 7, North Park Addition, 9th Filing (610 E 95th St.) This site is currently zoned Single Family-Three (SF-3) Zoning District and is occupied by a single-family residence. The property is surrounded by single family residential development to the north, south, east and west. The applicant is Chistopher Tetley, owner, and the purpose of the request is to obtain a variance to allow the construction of a 378 sq. ft. (14 ft. x 27 ft.) carport to be built with a zero-foot (0’) side yard setback instead of the required five feet (5’) side yard setback. The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 14-7-7 of the City of Odessa Zoning Ordinance, which states: Sec. 14-7-7 Side Yard In the following zoning districts the minimum required side yard shall be in accordance with the following schedule[1] and no building, structure or use shall hereafter be located so as to have a smaller side yard on each side of such building than herein required, and no side yard existing at the time of passage of this ordinance shall be reduced below the minimum set forth herein: Schedule minimum side yards - residential uses (See Exhibit A & B) (Ordinance 2019-13 adopted 4/9/19; Ordinance 2020-08 adopted 3/10/20). The following criteria as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance are to be used by the Board of Adjustment in evaluating variance requests. The burden of proof in meeting each of these criteria is upon the applicant. A. The variance request is not contrary to the public interest. B. Special conditions exist for the applicant that do not generally exist for others. C. A literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. D. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed, and substantial justice is done. Analysis of this request is that the variance will be contrary to the public interest for several reason. First, reducing the side yard setback to zero feet (0’) will create hazards and hardships to the adjacent property due to the proximity of the structure and will cause flow of rainwater to fall onto adjacent property. Second, it will reduce the amount of light, air, or open space for the adjacent property owner and set a negative precedent for other owners to place their structures on side and front yards. Staff recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a zero-foot (0') side yard setback. Instead, staff proposes reducing the width of the carport from fourteen feet (14') to nine feet (9') to comply with the required five-foot (5') side yard setback. This variance request was presented to the Zoning Board of Adjustment on May 15, 2025. The Board requested to table the case to allow time for obtaining approval from Public Works/Engineering for a curb cut, which would be necessary to access the carport if the variance were approved. This variance request was presented to the Zoning Board of Adjustment on June 04, 2025. The Board requested to table the case to allow time for finding alternative solutions with the Planning Department, as the AC unit compromised the carport's functionality, which would be essential for accessing the carport if the variance were approved. Should the Board choose to approve this request, the Planning staff would recommend adoption with the following conditions: 1. That no other structures or additions may be placed within the five feet (5’) side yard setback. 2. That the carport shall not be enclosed in the future. 3. The eave of the carport shall be kept entirely within the property line.  4. Shall meet building code requirements and obtain a permit from the Building Inspections Department. Information in order of inclusion: --Exhibit A – Side Yard Setback --Exhibit B – Site Plan --Area of notification map --Aerial map