The Planning Commission of the City of Lake Jackson voted to direct staff to update the zoning ordinance so that "nothing" except listed ornamental items may be placed forward of an established building line, and to draft an exception process for E-1 lots.

Commissioners opened a public hearing on setback requirements for pools and accessory structures in residential zones after staff identified a legal gap: the existing ordinance explicitly prohibits fences and enclosures in front of the building line but does not clearly prohibit accessory structures such as sheds, screened pool enclosures or accessory garages from being placed ahead of an already-established front building line.

Staff said the operative problem surfaced when a screened pool enclosure was permitted that extended a few feet forward of a house's front wall; because the ordinance references fences and enclosures but not accessory structures, the department lacked explicit language to deny similar placements. Staff described the building line as "the front of the primary structure once it is legally erected" and noted that definitions in the ordinance determine how enforcement occurs.

Commissioners and members of the public debated the breadth of a change. Several commissioners urged a simple rule: "nothing" in front of the building line except limited ornamental features (mailboxes, small decorative elements). Others asked that the E-1 zoning category be treated differently and that E-1 properties be able to request conditional uses or site-plan review. Staff confirmed they would prepare ordinance text that: (1) inserts a clear prohibition on structures forward of the building line, (2) enumerates narrow exceptions for ornamental features, and (3) provides a conditional-use or planner-review path for E-1 lots.

The motion as read directed staff to return with revised language defining accessory buildings, accessory structures, building line and principal building consistent with the commission's discussion. The commission approved the motion by voice vote; no roll-call tally was recorded in the transcript.

Commission discussion emphasized two clarifications staff said they will include in the draft: that a screened pool enclosure satisfies pool-safety enclosure requirements (staff noted that a screened enclosure is not the same as a fence but can meet insurance and safety criteria) and that the ordinance's definition section should not be used as the only means to set regulatory limits (i.e., the prohibition needs to appear in the ordinance language itself). Commissioners asked staff to return with precise draft wording and to explicitly preserve the ability to treat E-1 lots differently if the commission wants.

Staff will draft the amendment language and present it back to the commission for a future meeting.