BM 2007-04-5 BOAThe Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, April 5, 2007, at 7:30 p.m. in
the 2nd Floor Conference Room of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd.
Commissioners in attendance:
Mark LeGros, Chairman
David Stonecipher, Vice Chairman
John Hoppie, Commissioner
Robert Chomiak, Commissioner
Donald Perschbacher, Commissioner
Also present:
Greg Jones, Chief Building Official
Mary Beth Spletzer, Secretary
Item 1: Call to Order.
Alternate Commissioners in attendance:
Laura Ketchum, Alternate Commissioner
Harold Copher, Alternate Commissioner
Absent:
Jon Holzheimer, Alternate Commissioner
Applicants present:
Bach Nguyen, 703 Willow Ridge Court
Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman LeGros.
Commissioner Copher was appointed to serve on the board in place of Commissioner Hoppie
who abstained.
The oath was administered for those wishing to speak at this evening's meeting.
Item 2: Approval of minutes of March 1, 2007, meeting.
Motion was made by Commissioner Stonecipher and seconded by Commissioner Chomiak to
approve the minutes of the March 1, 2007, meeting. A vote was taken, and the minutes were
approved, 5 to 0.
Item 3: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from the fence
requirements of Ordinance No. 91500-A-130, as amended for the Planned
Development No. 149, for the property located at 703 Willow Ridge Court, of the
Vistas of Coppell, Phase II. Ms. Bach Nguyen is requesting a 15 -ft. variance to
the sideyard setback on the south side of the property, to allow her fence, which is
newly constructed by Southwest Fence and Deck, to remain in its current location.
Greg Jones provided background on this fence issue, explaining that the homeowner contracted
with Southwest Fence and Deck in mid-January to construct a new fence. As the contractor
began work, the Building Inspections office was notified by a citizen that the fence was being
constructed in the wrong location. It was further discovered that the contractor had not yet
obtained a permit. A City inspector, Michael Hodge, visited the job site asking the
superintendent to stop work, notifying him that the fence was in the wrong location, and
informing him that a permit must be obtained before work could continue. Greg Jones referred
to a statement, included in the packet, provided by Mr. Hodge, in which the timeframe of events
is outlined, noting that the first contact with the fence contractor was made on January 22nd. Mr.
Hodge's statement indicated that the fence contractor continued to work the next day, January
23rd, without a permit, even though he had been warned twice, that day, to stop work. Greg
Jones explained that the crew was continuing to construct the fence, during that time, even
though they had been warned that the fence was in the wrong location. He noted that although
the City finally did get a permit from Southwest Fence and Deck, his office was unable to
approve it for the location where the fence was being built.
Referring to the location plan in the packet, Greg Jones provided a more detailed explanation of
the location of the fence. He noted, also, that two letters had been received in opposition to the
variance request, one being from the neighbor who lives directly across the street from the
fence in question, and the other letter from the current president of the Vistas of Coppell
homeowner's association. In addition, he noted that an opinion from David Dodd, of the City
Attorney's Office, is included in the packet.
Greg Jones further explained that the original Planned Development for the Vistas required a
15 -ft. setback along Rockcrest Drive, adding that if his office had been allowed to review this
fence permit, prior to construction, the premature construction in the wrong location could have
been avoided. He reported that in 2000, it was an option by City Council to change the
Ordinance regarding the 15 -ft. sideyard setbacks on lots such as this in the Vistas of Coppell,
but City Council did not take such action. He noted, however, that City Council granted an
amnesty period, to extend through November 15, 2003, as a way for homeowners to come
forward with their sideyard variance requests. He noted that the Nguyens lived in their Willow
Ridge home during this amnesty period, and would have been aware of this opportunity, but
chose not to take advantage of it. Greg Jones emphasized, however, that the amnesty period
has now long since expired, and is mentioned here only as background information.
Greg Jones reported that because the fence was constructed without a permit and in an
unlawful location, staff recommends denial of this variance request.
Chairman LeGros asked about the location of the original fence, and Greg Jones replied that the
original fence was constructed in the correct location, according to the PD requirements.
Commissioner Stonecipher asked for clarification on the sequence of events concerning the
permit application, and Greg reported that the permit was received in the office on January 18th
and possibly picked up January 22nd, although the actual permit issuance date cannot be
substantiated without the computer records. Commissioner Stonecipher commented that it
appears that the permit was requested on the 1 e, but the work was started before the
contractor knew what the conditions were behind it, and even after the conditions were pointed
out, they continued to work, and Greg Jones responded that he agreed.
Referring to the survey included in the packet, Commissioner Perschbacher commented that the
it shows the fence in an allowable location that would not require a variance, and Greg Jones
indicated that it does show the fence to be located on the 15 -ft. line. Chairman LeGros asked if
this drawing was submitted by the applicant or if the City provided the drawing. Greg Jones
clarified that applicants are required to provide any and all supporting documentation with the
permits they submit, adding that he could not actually prove, without a doubt, that it was the
— applicant who provided the attached drawing, but that is the assumption in this situation.
The applicant was invited to step forward and present her case.
Ms. Bach Nguyen indicated that her homeowners association has already approved the design
and position of her fence. She noted that placing her fence in this location will add more value
to her property, as well as to the surrounding area, with the overall goal being to provide a larger
play area for her son. Ms. Nguyen commented that she did not believe that this fence would
obstruct the view for traffic in the area. In addition, she reported that she was surprised to learn,
just this evening, that the contractor had not applied for a permit prior to constructing the fence,
adding that she would ask her contractor to respond to that issue.
Referring to Ms. Nguyen's answer of 'no' to question #2 on the checklist, Chairman LeGros
asked her why she feels her land is not useful for any other purpose without the variance. Ms.
Nguyen replied that it's very difficult for their boy to be restricted to playing behind where the old
fence was located. Chairman LeGros reviewed the other checklist questions with Ms. Nguyen,
and Mrs. Nguyen commented that a real estate salesperson had told her, when they originally
bought the house, that the fenceline could be changed later, when they decided to replace the
fence; Ms. Nguyen reported that this was the reason she paid the premium price for a larger
corner lot.
Commissioner Stonecipher commented to Ms. Nguyen, that even without the variance, she will
be gaining additional space in the backyard by having the driveway gate in the rear. Ms.
Nguyen agreed, but added that the new fence will be placed right on top of the new sprinkler
system, and if they add a swimming pool in the backyard, as they originally wanted to do, it will
greatly reduce their son's play area, since he won't have the sideyard area in which to play.
The hearing was opened to the public.
Speaking in favor of the variance request was Jamie Turrentine, owner of Southwest Fence and
Deck, 4832 Dozier Road, Carrollton.
Mr. Turrentine reported that his company does a lot of work in Coppell and permits everything
they do. He noted that they consistently follow the rules and turn down work that they cannot
do. He noted, however, that he was attending an out-of-town training seminar at the time that
this particular job was being done, and another 20 -year employee was in charge. He reported
that, when the on-the-job crew was notified to stop work, by a City inspector, because they
didn't have a permit, they immediately contacted their permit -runner, and she said she had the
permit "in hand", meaning it had been issued, so they continued to work.
Mr. Turrentine admitted that Ms. Nguyen's hardship, in this case, was partially due to his
company's lack of organization. Concerning the location of the fence, he reported that he has
been in the business long enough to know that he can safely assume a fence can be placed so
it aligns with the fence behind it. He commented that larger yards add tremendous value, and if
he had known about those strict fence restrictions, he wouldn't have wanted to buy that lot,
either. He noted that his company was wrong to make the assumption, but added that his
company is here tonight to support Ms. Nguyen, and admit that they are the hardship in this
situation, because they didn't double-check the required setbacks.
Commissioner Stonecipher commented that "hardship" is defined by Texas State Statutes, and
those are the rules this board follows.
Motion was made by Commissioner Perschbacher to grant the variance for a 15 -ft, variance to
the sideyard setback on the south side of the property. Commissioner Stonecipher seconded
the motion, and a vote was taken. Motion did not carry, 0 to 5. Variance denied.
Other Business.
None.
Adjournment.
Meeting adjourned.
Mir —LeGros, Chairman