Item 10 - ZBA22-000113 CITY OF
SOUTHLAI<,.-E
Department of Planning & Development Services
STAFF REPORT
March 4, 2022
CASE NO: ZBA22-0001
PROJECT: 615 Brewer Road Variance for Fence Height
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY: Samuel Wiford is requesting approval of a Variance to Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as
amended, Section 39.1 requiring a fence not exceed eight (8) feet in height on
property described as Lot 3, Block 1, Brewer Addition, an addition to the City of
Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and located at 615 Brewer Road, Southlake,
Tarrant County, Texas. Current Zoning: "SF-1 B" — Single Family Residential District.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a Variance to Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as
amended, Section 39.1, requiring a fence not exceed eight (8) feet in height. The
applicant is requesting permission to permit a fence that is approximately (9) nine feet
height. The request is being made retroactively, as the fence was constructed prior to
a permit being issued. The applicant contends that due to topography changes on
both the subject and surrounding properties, as well as the public uses found on a
neighboring property, unsightly aesthetic aspects would be better buffered by such a
fence.
ACTION NEEDED: 1) Conduct a public hearing
2) Consider approval of a Variance
ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information
(B) Vicinity Map
(C) Variance Application & Support
(D) Survey
(E) Surrounding Property Owners Map and Responses
STAFF CONTACT: Reagan Rothenberger (817) 748-8602
Dennis Killough (817) 748-8072
Case No.
ZBA22-0001
OWN ER/
APPLICANT:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Samuel Timothy Wiford II
PROPERTY SITUATION: 615 Brewer Road
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3, Block 1, Brewer Addition
LAND USE CATEGORY: Low Density Residential
CURRENT ZONING: SF-1 B — Single Family Residential District
HISTORY: - The property was annexed in 1988.
- A Final Plat for the Brewer Addition was approved May 15, 1990. The zoning
on the property at that time was SF-1 B.
- The "SF-1 B" — Single Family Residential District zoning was placed on the
property with the adoption of Ordinance No. 480-16 and the Official Zoning
Map on April 17, 1990.
- A principal residence with approximately 3,980 square feet of livable floor
area was built in 2001 (Source: TAD). An additional accessory structure was
completed in 2010, which increased the total living space on the site to
approximately 6,773 square feet.
- On June 25, 2009, the ZBA approved a variance request to Zoning
Ordinance No. 480, Section 11.5(c) to permit an accessory building to
encroach within the south yard setback. This building was completed in April
of 2010.
- On July 30, 2009, the ZBA approved an application for a Special Exception
Use Permit per Ordinance No. 480, Section 44.12(1) for a family quarters. The
family quarters were combined with the above referenced accessory building.
STAFF COMMENTS: The Board may grant a variance from the literal enforcement of the zoning
ordinance:
a. Where the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is
done;
b. Where the Board finds that granting the variance will not be contrary to
the public interest, and;
c. Where, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the
provisions of this ordinance would result in "unnecessary hardship."
A hardship is considered "unnecessary" where the applicant demonstrates:
1. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to
the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to
other lands, structures or buildings in the same district;
2. That the literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance
deprives the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties
in the same district;
3. That the special conditions and circumstances that exist are not the
result of the actions of the applicant;
4. That the granting of this variance does not confer on the applicant any
Case No. Attachment A
ZBA22-0001 Page 1
special privilege that is denied by the zoning ordinance to other lands,
structures or buildings in the same district;
5. That the reasons stated in the application justify granting the variance
and that the variance will be the minimum necessary to make possible
the reasonable use of the land, building or structure, and
6. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and will not be injurious to
the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Case No. Attachment A
ZBA22-0001 Page 2
Case No.
ZBA22-0001
Attachment B
Page 1
ZONING BOARD OF AD USTME;NT
VARIANCE APPLICATION
1400 Main Street, Suite 310
Southlake, TX 76092
Phone: (817) 748-8069
ZBA CASE NO.
Location of Application:
Single Family Residence
61 S Brewer Road, Southl ake, TX 76092
Ownee': Samuel Timothy Wiford II
Address: 615 Brewer Road
Southlake, TX 76092
Telephone: 214-771-5160
Entail: tim a,wifordgallery.com
REGARDING:
FILING FEE: $305.00
This home's proximity to the City of Southlake water tower, its unusual elevation relative to
adjacent homes, as well as its views of dilapidated surrounding warehouses, suggests that this
home faces different circumstances than most in Southlake.
1
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 1
$15 MEVER ROAD 1 _
M.
" e
fg ::-A
i
PROLINE w yl ,
Perimeter of proposed fence replacement at 615 Rreiver Road, .Vouthlake, TX
State. the SPECIFIC PROVISION of the zoning ordinance for which you are requesting a
variance.
Fence Guidelines
T 1 1 i 1` ! 1•
rence permits must oe suumitteu onnne at ciiyoisourt�.1n1ia1xe.com/oniine permits.
=r eiui-1t3 are r ef'iiiir eu t�l niiy i k1e11U) vvra I MUD ungu.
=> Perimeter fences over 8 feet in height require a variance from the Zoning Board of
Adjustment.
Introduction and an explanation for filing late for a variance:
The applicant is filing for a variance retroactively. The 9' fence already exists, so an explanation
is in order. First, the owner apologizes for installing a 9' fence before applying to the City of
Southlake for a permit and variance.
2
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 2
Until 2021, Samuel Wiford, homeowner of the 615 Brewer Road property (hereinafter 615) had
never before owned a home. This home renovation represents his first experience restoring a
property.
The owner did not deliberately attempt to circumvent any municipal code or civic process. In
fact, it was his own phone call to the city to ask questions about gates and fences in
Southlake that brought him to the permitting process, albeit late. Until he made that call, he
did not know it was necessary to permit a taller fence with the city or request a variance,
especially in a neighborhood with no Homeowners Association (HOA).
The situation unfolded in the following manner: Samuel's Ebby Halliday realtor, Sandra Mills
(from the Prosper office) called the City of Southlake on his behalf when he considered replacing
a 6-foot tall fence with a similar picket fence. She had no reason to discuss the "taller" fence
option at that time, and so she assured Sam he did not need a permit. Therefore, he did not know
that size mattered when he changed the renovation plan to include a higher fence.
Considering the fact that there is no HOA in this neighborhood, Samuel thought he was in the
clear after speaking with the neighbors and his realtor. The owner states the following: "As for
my part, I failed to verify the information myself, so ultimately, I recognize that I am
responsible for stepping out of order regarding the building of the fence."
Though the owner inadvertently overlooked seeking approval from the city for the fence, lie did
consider the neighbors in advance of the build and spent extra money to give them a good
experience. For example, he built a "wood -on -wood" cedar picket fence (all other picket fences
in the neighborhood are wood -by -wood), covered all the back -of -the -fence poles facing the
neighbors' houses and stained all the boards at the bottom of the fence around the entire
perimeter, including any part visible in front of the neighbors' houses (See Picture 1.5 —
Neighbor's view of the new fence). Most other wood fences in the neighborhood leave those
poles exposed or are simply not well maintained (see Picture 1.1 - 1.4 below).
When he spoke to both adjacent neighbors Glen Woods — south, and Jill Wilkes — cast; they
favored the fence for some of the reasons stated below; as did the property owners north across
the street --Vickie and Barry Densmore — who have a house about one block down the road. Now
all the neighbors can enjoy a beautiful finished fence — the best quality fence so far in the
neighborhood (See Pictures 1,1 1.5 below). Likely, the improvements made at 615 will help all
property values in the neighborhood.
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 3
Picture 1.1 — Sample of 8 foot fence directly across the street frond 615 Brewer Road
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 4
Picture 1.2 - Sample of fence just down the street from 615 Brewer Road
5
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 5
yy
_ F�-,_ Sw l-'�''�!''TFd�?. �q.��J r AE ��� L�L'��t�" ..tea �� � r 7-.gi{-,�F. •�
W
Picture 1.3 - Sample of fence just down the street from 615 Breiver Road
6
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 6
/Yctxr/. 4 — Neighborsftnce directly /* the cox of the
7
Case No. Attachment
,, r
' ♦'lye i
r r F.y
e
Iliclure 1.5 Kiel:, of the back of the fence front the adjacent property east of'GI S
Describe EXACTLY HOW, and TO WHAT EXTENT your request will DIFFER from the
REQUIREMENTS of the ordinance, as described ABOVE:
If approved, the fence around the perimeter of 615 Brewer Road (hereinafter "615") would by
design be approximately 9-feet tall, exceeding the normal 8-foot fence ordinance.
Describe the CONDITIONS and CIRCUMSTANCES which are UNIQUE to your
property and situation:
This home's proximity to the City of Southlake water tower, its unusual elevation relative to
adjacent homes, as well as its views of dilapidated surrounding warehouses, suggests that this
home faces different circumstances than most in Southlake.
The property faces four UNIQUE CONDITIONS and CIRCUMSTANCES which separate it
from other typical properties and demand the higher -than -usual fence, including:
8
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 8
Difficult environment due to adjacent city property. On the west side of the 615
property sits a City of Southlake municipal water tower (See picture IA). The barbed
wire topped fence that morphs into a wall in certain places (See picture 1B) ranged in
height from approximately 7.5 to 8+ feet (see Picture 1C), and over 10' tall in some
places, if overgrowth was included (See similar examples, though not as severe, in
Picture 1D).
As you can see from the pictures, the municipal fence was poorly maintained, unkempt,
and deteriorating. The owner originally thought the fence belonged to the 615 property.
He paid to trim back some of the foliage, arranged to have the fence removed. Thankfully
Four Seasons Fence Company pointed out that the fence belonged to the City of
Southlake even though he had contracted them to remove it.
Needless to say, the 615 property's proximity (adjacent) to a government chain -link fence
with 18" of barbed wire on top did not feel welcoming or homey. From the residential
side at 615, the government fence looks like the kind of structure that might surround a
detention center or a prison.
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 9
p", .4f;yll
INNIAZI,
""VAN
pp" noon
KAY:
Picture I& Picture offoliage atop the water tower ferrceline
11
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 11
Picture 1C -- Example of Heavier Foliage Adding Additional Height to the Fenceline
12
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 12
Picture 1D -- Fence becomes a ivall and entrance%xit into water tomler/phone toner sector
2. Possible noise pollution. The higher fence drowns out some of the sounds from and
views of city vehicles (see Picture 2A and 213) coming and going to the water tower
throughout the day. The water tower is a cellular tower too (See Picture 2C). The cellular
communication trucks come and go as well (See Picture 2 B).
A 9-foot fence blocks the view of the "8-foot plus" government wall/fence, the vehicle
entrance/exit, and most of the municipal and service vehicles driving by. (See Picture 2C)
D
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 13
No Text
f
1s
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 15
Picture 2C — Waler• lower• doubles as a phow tower.
16
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 16
3. Elevation that encumbers privacy. There exist elevation differences of approximately
7-10 feet or more (see Pictures 3A and 313) with neighbors to the south and east.
The 615 house's elevated position on the property relative to the neighbors to the south
encumbered privacy for both parties. With only a 6-foot fence, 615 residents could see
right to the front door of the neighbor's to the south (see Picture 3C), The neighbors, in
turn, could see directly into the 615 house, especially at night, and had a full -body view
of the pool area both day and night. As a result, the 615 residents could not enjoy any
solitude at their pool or leave their shades up at night.
When testing height in advance of the decision to build a 9-foot fence, it was revealed
that an 8-foot fence, while an improvement, would only diminish the problem, but not
eliminate it. Due to the elevation differences, when standing, the neighbors from both
sides could still see over the fence on the first level without any effort.
To solve this problem required a 9-foot fence, rather than an 8-foot fence. A larger fence
required more money than a smaller one, so the visual need was measured against the
added expense. The visual need won.
To the east, similar problems existed relative to the pool, but the distance and disposition
of that location did not encumber privacy inside the 615 residence (no windows were
viewable from the east side). Even so, the views for 615 residents were not pretty —
service trucks and old broken-down cars (See Picture 3D and 3E).
h rr .r .r r r•. nr•n n both
.r r r
Granting all parties the privacy they seek improves quality or lire for both the residents or
615 and the two adjacent homeowners.
.L 7,
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 17
Picture 3A Demonstrating 4-5 fbol elevalion change.fr�om hack door to pool level
18
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 18
Picture 3B — Demonstrating an additional 4-5foot elevation change pool level to southern
fence.
19
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 19
Picture 3C Example of Weiv of neighbors' house to the south (with 6 foot fence)
20
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 20
Picture 3D — Improved vier of the neighbor's house to the east. Visibility with a 9' fence,
still does not offer a great view, but it is a marked improvement.
(Please note old broken down cars)
L1
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 21
Picture 3E - East Neighbors' horse (please mote lots of service vehicles, all visible with 6
foot fence.
22
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 22
4. Relative seclusion. The 615 property is the only house at the end of this road. There is
not a home directly across the street, only the back of an old deteriorating 8-foot fence
and the view of two dilapidated warehouses. A taller fence in this secluded spot feels
safer.
Explain why these unique conditions and circumstances make it UNREASONABLE or
UNFAIR to apply the STANDARD ordinance requirements to your property.
As stated, this home's proximity to the City of Southlake water tower as well as dilapidated
surrounding warehouses, suggests that this home faces different circumstances than most in
Southlake.
Additionally, in order for the Board members to vote in support of your application it must be
shown that the unique conditions and circumstances which you have described are NOT the
result of your own actions.
Can you explain how the unique conditions and circumstances affecting your property
came to be, AND SHOW that they ARE NOT the result of YOUR OWN ACTIONS:.
2:3
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 23
The unique conditions and circumstances of this property came about due to topography and the
proximity of the City of Southlake water tower. The owner/s has no hand in either.
Furthermore, the Board must be satisfied that the variance you are requesting is the MINIMUM
deviation from the terms of the ordinance NECESSARY to OVERCOME the unique conditions
and circumstances which you have described.
Explain how your proposal is the MINIMUM manner by which the unique conditions and
circumstances described can be overcome:......................................................
A 9-foot fence was visually necessary on all four sides for either visual or privacy reasons --
privacy concerns related to the neighbors to the south and east, visual quality to the north (the
back of an old fence) and west (the water tower). An 8-foot fence was not sufficient because of
elevation differences. An 8-foot option improved the situation but did not solve the problem
because all the adults could still see over the fence unencumbered.
Also, the Board must be convinced that granting such a variance would not constitute an
UNFAIR GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE to you, granting privileges that are otherwise
denied by the ordinance. In other words, why would granting this variance be ONLY FAIR, and
NOT MORE THAN FAIR, to you, since others are prevented from doing what you are
requesting:
As previously stated, 615's proximity to the City of Southlake water tower, its unusual elevation
relative to adjacent homes, as well as its views of dila6dated surrounding warehouses, suggests
that this home faces different circumstances than most in Southlake. V Vr
City ordinances require a tall fence around the water tower and an entrance/parking area for city
trucks (in front of the facility), but it is unfair to let those ordinances unnecessarily determine the
experience of an adjacent homeowner. Looking at overgrown spiral barbed wire and municipal
service trucks does not create an equal opportunity to enjoy one's home.
It is fair to grant this variance because without it, it will be more difficult for any of the
homeowners at or adjacent to the 615 property to enjoy the privacy of their homesteads. There is
no apparent downside to this request.
Given the secluded nature of the property, the difficult elevation of the house, the prison -like
nature of the city fence next to the property, the noise caused by city vehicles, and the hearty
approval of all the neighbors adjacent to the property, I would ask the City of Southlake to
approve this request for a variance to allow a 9-foot fence at 615 Brewer Road.
24
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 24
Also, the board must be convinced that granting such a variance would not constitute an
UNFAIR GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE to you, granting privileges that are otherwise denied
by the ordinance.
In other words, why would granting this variance be ONLY FAIR, and NOT MORE THAN FAIR,
to you, since others are prevented from doing what you are requesting;
Finallv the Rnard must he certain vnur rpmipst is in harmnnv with the nuhlir welfare anti will
not in any way be injurious or detrimental to your neighbors and their property rights.
EXPIRATION OF GRANTED REQUEST.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES OF PROCEDURE, Section 7.1
ryiiy ZINM,iai CAL.cpiiviii wr w01i0 4.,,0 yi ai iicu Or auii UI iZ-cu uy' MU UUC31 U 011011 auii 1U1 iZe Ulu
issuance of a building permit and/or a Certificate of Occupancy, as the case may be, for a
period of one year from the date of the favorable action of the Board unless said Board shall
have in its action approved a different period of time and has so shown such specific period of
Case No. Attachment 6
ZBA22-0001 Page 25
time in the minutes of its action. if the building permit andior Certificate of Occupancy shaii not
have been applied for within said one year period or such extended period as the Board may
have specifically granted, then the special exception or variance shall be deemed to have been
waived and all rights thereunder terminated. All applications for a request which have been
denied shall be deemed to be denied with prejudice unless stated otherwise in the Board's
written decision.
YOUR RIGHTS TO APPEAL THE BOARUS DECISION.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, Section 211.011
Any of the following persons may present to a court of record a verified petition stating that the
decision of the board of adjustment is illegal in whole or in part and specifying the grounds of
the illegality: (1) a person aggrieved by a decision of the board; (2) a taxpayer; or (3) an officer,
rlanar+mcn+ hnarri nr hi iraai i r,f +hc mi inirinalihi
The petition must be presented within ten days after the date the decision is filed in the board's
office.
Signature of Owner or Authorized Agent:
Date:
Case No.
ZBA22-0001
Attachment !C
Page 26
PKUPERTY OWNER AC:KNIOWLEUUEMENTS
Notarized signature of all owners is mandatory.
Use additional sheets if necessary.
An mvnnr of thn n n ft dnrnrihnd in Fhir, n nlinn+inn 1 u ndarrtond that m nmnertv it
being considered for a Variq^
Signature of
Owner's Name (Typed or Printed} 4-' e—
�-+�'�'a�
fl ��
Notary Acknowledgement. Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared&mku, 4 "-r-
known to mp to hp the np.rsnn whose name is snhscrihpd to the nhnvp and fnrpnninn instnimpnt and knnwlpdnp to mp tHht hplshp
executed the same for the purposes and consideration expressed and in the capacity therein stated.
Given under my hand and seal of office on this the 5 day of
{
MIRANDA C ZARLING
Notary Public In and or exas =��}Prp`B Notary Public
M commission expires the day of 20 9-3 *t y ,1° STATE EX TEXAS
Y p Y NF Mycomm.Exp.01•Q9.23
Notary ID a 13184892.8
Agent Authorization: 1,
given my permission to
Signature of Owner.
Owner's Name (Typed or Printed)
Agent Authorization (if applicable)
owner of the aforementioned property do hereby certify that I have
to act as my agent for this variance request.
Notary Acknowledgement. Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared
known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the above and foregoing instrument, and knowledge to me that he/she
executed the same for the purposes and consideration expressed and in the capacity therein stated
WlYell —A— — II —A a11U JGGI VI oIIIbG VII 4111J 411G tJG�' VI , LV
Notary Public In and For Texas
My commission expires the
day of 20
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 27
SURVEY
2
TAX
nil 8FEWER RWD
i
Q'_ •,�
P 51 d p7T
wrnr�.m�Y ue� On..-
Case No. Attachment D
ZBA22-0001 Page 1
C+ :: •1171l1711�[ ' : • ' • 1�1 �I1�I�I Z+ :_ `TL7►T[+`7�+`7
SPO #
Owner
Zoning
Property Address
Acreage
Response
1
STOEPPEL, WILLIAM
SF1-A
2775 FLORENCE RD
1.28
NR
2
NAIR, SREEKUMARAN
SF1-A
2755 FLORENCE RD
4.98
NR
3
FELIX, WANDA
MH
2915SUTTON PL
0.44
NR
4
CONN, GWENDOLYN B
MH
2913SUTTON PL
0.41
NR
5
ANALOVITCH, JAY
MH
2909SUTTONPL
0.37
NR
6
SOUTHLAKE, CITY OF
MH
2911 SUTTON PL
0.38
NR
7
TRUITT, THOMAS W
MH
2907 SUTTON PL
0.39
NR
8
MILLER, HARVEYD
MH
2919SUTTON PL
0.42
NR
9
RAPP, WESLEY S
MH
2921 SUTTON PL
0.41
NR
10
MILLER, HARVEY
MH
2917SUTTON PL
0.40
NR
11
WEBB, WILLIAM
SF1-A
2801 FLORENCE RD
3.26
NR
12
SOUTHLAKE, CITY OF
CS
635 BREWER RD
4.96
NR
13
WILKES, RICHARD M
SF1-B
605 BREWER RD
1.01
NR
14
DINSMORE, BARRY
SF1-B
2903 FLORENCE RD
2.92
NR
15
MAXWELL, CHAD
SF1-B
2839 FLORENCE RD
1.64
NR
Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided
Notices Sent:
Responses Received
Thirteen (13)
None (0)
NR: No Response
Case No.
ZBA22-0001
Attachment E
Page 1