BM 2001-03-01 BOA MINUTES OF MARCH 1, 2001
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, March 1, 2001, at 8:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd.
In attendance: Absent:
David Stonecipher, Chairman Robert Turk, Alternate Commissioner
Mark LeGros, Vice Chairman
Jamshed Jamadar, Commissioner Also present:
Steven Wright, Commissioner Greg Jones, Chief Building Official
Robert Chomiak, Commissioner Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary
John Hoppie, Alternate Commissioner
Norman Kressmann, Alternate Commissioner
David Terry, Alternate Commissioner
Applicant present:
Catherine Mooney, 203 Woodhurst, Coppell
Item 1: Call to Order.
Chairman Stonecipher called the meeting to order at 8:20 p.m.
Chairman Stonecipher administered the oath for all members of the audience wishing to speak
either for or against the request being presented at this meeting.
Item 2: Approval of Minutes of February 1, 2001 Meeting
Motion was made by Commissioner Wright to approve the minutes of the February 1, 2001
meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner LeGros, and a vote was taken. Motion
carried, 5 to 0. Minutes approved.
Item 3: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 9-2-6(D)
of the City's Code of Ordinances, for the property located at 203 Woodhurst
Drive. Ms. Catherine Mooney is requesting a variance to allow the existing patio,
trellis, and wrought iron railing to remain in the front yard of this SF-7 zoned
district.
Greg Jones explained that his office received a complaint in December concerning glare to
adjacent properties resulting from outdoor lighting at this address. When an inspection was
made, it was discovered that a fence and trellis had been constructed, without a permit, in the
front yard.
He added that the applicant, Ms. Mooney, was notified by mail of the violations concerning the
glare from the lighting, the fence, and the trellis, as well as a timeframe in which to accomplish
1
compliance. Ms. Mooney subsequently met with a City inspector to discuss the options available
in this situation. He reported that the outdoor lighting has since been removed, and the
remaining issues for consideration by this Board are the fence and trellis, only.
Greg Jones further explained that the property crimes experienced by Ms. Mooney are actually a
police matter, and not a property hardship. He added that violating the zoning restrictions
concerning fencing, is probably not the best way to approach this problem, but it may be one
possible solution.
He reported that due to the size of this trellis, it was viewed by the City to more closely resemble
a fence structure, than a trellis. He also explained that although the patio is legal, the wrought
iron fence surrounding it is not allowed by Ordinance.
Greg Jones referred to copies of a petition, included in the packets, from Ms. Mooney's
neighbors expressing their approval of her fence and trellis. In addition, one individual letter
was received in favor of this request, and three letters were received in opposition.
The applicant was invited to step forward to present her case.
Catherine Mooney provided a description of her lot, pointing out the location of the fence, the
trellis and various flowerbeds. She referred to the definitions of"fence" and "front yard", as
outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, adding that the wrought iron railing around her patio does not
serve as an enclosure or screen, nor does it meet the other characteristics of a fence.
Ms. Mooney explained that the trellis was erected three years ago, after a two-section split rail
fence was knocked down by a pickup truck. She added that the free-standing trellis is located in
the same place as the previous split rail fence, and does not serve as a screen, but is simply a
structure to support roses. She also described the various property crimes that had been
committed against her, citing security as one of her priority issues.
Ms. Mooney reported that she plans to apply for two permits in the coming week: one to
construct a storage building, and the other to erect an 8-ft. high sideyard fence between her lot
and 207 Woodhurst Drive, in order to reduce glare when she re-installs her outdoor security
light.
Ms. Mooney explained that she takes pride in maintaining her property, and has received many
compliments from neighbors and passers-by. She further explained that it was not her intention
to violate City ordinances, adding that she does not feel that her patio railing qualifies as a fence,
but indicating her willingness to move the rose trellis, if the Board so desires. In summary, Ms.
Mooney explained that she took a ride within a one-quarter mile radius of her home, and found
27 homes that have patios of varying sizes, seven of which had some type of railing.
The meeting was opened to the public. Those wishing to speak in favor of the variance request
were invited to come forward.
Steve Berens, of 328 Woodhurst Place, noted that Ms. Mooney's outdoor design is very
attractive and impressive, and she is a very friendly neighbor.
Tammy Rice, of 233 S. Heartz, explained that her house looks into Ms. Mooney's front yard, and
is very pleasing to the eye. She added that many people drive unbelievably fast through that
intersection, often clipping the corner.
Mike Heathington, of 229 Heartz, added his approval of Ms. Mooney's front yard design.
Martin Rice, of 233 S. Heartz, reported that Ms. Mooney has been the focus of teenage pranks in
the neighborhood, so the security measures she has taken are justified, and she' s accomplished it
in a very tasteful manner.
No one spoke in opposition to the variance request.
Chairman Stonecipher asked for clarification of the definition of a fence, and Greg Jones
responded that, in his interpretation of the Ordinance, if a structure screens something and if it
restricts access, somewhat, it is classified as a fence, adding that the same definition could even
apply to the trellis.
Commissioner Wright asked for a differentiation between "fence" and "railing". Greg Jones
responded that although the building code doesn't differentiate between the two, a railing is
usually provided as a safety feature for ingress and egress where a change of elevation occurs.
The hearing was closed to the public, and opened to the Board for discussion.
The Board generally agreed that because there were no objections to the trellis from surrounding
neighbors, it could remain as constructed, and would not be considered an issue at this hearing.
The Board also unanimously agreed that the wrought iron fits the definition of "fence", as
outlined in the Ordinance.
Motion was made by Commissioner Wright that the variance be granted to allow the wrought
iron fence and trellis to remain. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Chomiak, and a vote
was taken. Motion failed, 1 to 4, with Commissioner Chomiak voting in favor of the request.
Variance denied.
Item 4: Other Business.
Greg Jones distributed the newly revised Board of Adjustment roster, adding that the e-mail
method of communicating with members seems to be working well.
Greg Jones reported that two cases have been received for next month's hearing.
He also explained that the Building and Standards Commission will probably deal with the code
adoption issue in the coming months, adding that there are some concerns with ISO ratings and
which version of the building code and fire code should be adopted.
Adjournment.
Motion was made by Commissioner LeGros that the meeting be adjourned. Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Wright, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Meeting
adjourned.
David Stonecipher, Chairman
Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary