Mesquite board denies variance for backyard structure, citing ordinance standards

The Mesquite Board of Adjustment denied a variance request for an accessory structure at 410 Sutherland Avenue, voting 4-1 after staff advised the board the request did not meet the city's variance approval standards.

T. R. Clark, a staff planner, told the board the existing covered patio is about 240 square feet and encroaches into both the rear (3-foot required) and interior side (5-foot required) setbacks. Clark said staff had sent eight return notices for the case (four within the required notice area) and that there were no return notices in opposition, but staff did not find that the application met the three approval standards under the Mesquite Zoning Ordinance: public interest, unnecessary hardship and avoidance of a disproportionate benefit. "Staff is recommending denial of the variance request," Clark said.

The applicant, Jose Tapia, said he purchased the home in 2023 and that the previous owner, Faye Price, told him the structure had been in place since 1995. Tapia said he performed cosmetic and safety repairs and that removal or relocation of the structure would create a financial hardship for his household. "If we are asked to demolish this thing, it will bring further more hardship for us to be more in the negative moving forward as well," Tapia said. He also said moving the structure would likely run afoul of pool-safety regulations and that he had not obtained a survey when he purchased the property.

Board members asked whether the size had changed, whether permits or a survey existed, and whether reducing the structure's footprint could bring it into compliance. Several members suggested alternatives such as awnings or umbrellas for shade or reducing the structure's dimensions. One member noted concerns about precedent if the board approved a variance where no comparable nonconforming structures existed nearby.

After deliberation, Board member Aiken moved to deny the variance, Board member Williams seconded, and the motion to deny carried 4-1, with Board member Augustine voting no. The clerk called the roll and the board formalized the denial on the record.

The denial means the applicant must either bring the structure into compliance with setback requirements or seek other lawful remedies; the staff and board reminded the applicant that building permits and inspections would be required for any future work.