Board of Adjustment sends pergola variance for 613 Hazy Hills Loop back to Planning & Zoning after staff flags impervious-cover and setback issues

Charlie Castillo, the contractor representing homeowner Cory King, asked the Board of Adjustment on April 7 for a variance (2026-00002) that would allow a covered pergola to encroach into the 20-foot rear building setback at 613 Hazy Hills Loop. "My name is Charlie Castillo. I'm with 37th Aluminum. We're the contractors assigned to build the pergola accessory structure for Mr. Cory King," Castillo said, and described confusion in the permit review process and costs the homeowner had incurred — notably a $950 electrician fee the homeowner paid after an earlier plan-review comment suggested the prefab pergola was acceptable.

Planning staff told the board the application contained errors in the impervious-cover calculations and that the proposal would raise the lot’s impervious cover beyond the subdivision maximum. "They indicated it as 30%, which we know and I will be presenting to you later ... it's actually 53%," staff said, noting the development agreement and the subdivision plat set a 50% maximum impervious cover for residential lots in the Headwaters at Barton Creek development. Staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission both concluded the application did not meet variance criteria because the lot and subdivision characteristics are not unique, and that permitting the encroachment would set a precedent affecting neighboring parcels and water-management objectives.

Council and board members questioned whether design options — smaller footprint, open-roof pergola, moving the structure laterally, or removing a concrete slab to reduce impervious area — could resolve staff concerns. Staff confirmed certain design changes could reduce impervious cover but said the lot is tight and even reduced designs would likely still encroach on the rear setback.

Rather than deny the request outright (a denial would bar a like zoning application for six months absent substantial new information), the board voted to refer the item back to Planning & Zoning so the applicant can pursue revisions and work with staff on alternatives. The referral passed on a roll-call vote with one member opposed.