Item 5 - ZBA22-000113 S0UTHLA1<.,E
Department of Planning S Development Services
STAFF REPORT
April 14, 2022
CASE NO: ZBA22-0001
PROJECT: 615 Brewer Road Variance for Fence Heiaht
EXECUTIVE Samuel Wiford is requesting approval of a Variance to Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as
SUMMARY: 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.
This item was tabled at the March 10, 2022 Zoning Board of Adjustment regular
meeting.
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
N
s ZBA22-0001
s
D 90180 360
v Feet
Case No.
ZBA22-0001
Attachment B
Page 1
ZONING RGARD 0 - AIiiJWSTME T
VARIANCE APPLICATION
1400 ]ll un ` ti-cel, Suite 310
Southlake, TX 7�')() )7
Phone: (817) 748-9069
ZBA CASE NO,
Location of Applicakou-
Single Family Residence
615 Brewer Road, Southlake, TX 76092
ON%Pier: Samuel 'I iiiioli)- VVi1'()rd II
Address: f)15 Bi-tx1cr Road
.,nutlikikc- -I ! 7092)
Telephone: 214-771-5160
Email:
REGAIMING
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.
J.
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 1
�Hx, nni�•vws.VY
pr<v vs'A
+.�d�w,a�e 4d.i�r. w.wgiyGr. tw...'r•I.Mtl. +F!-.t £ �_
� I
er�u� m'�r-+fir
.1'i. ram}
air rwrr
PROLINE
Perimeter of proposed fence replacement at 615 Brewer Road, .Soathlake,
TX
State. the SPECIFIC PROVISION of the zoning ordinance for which ,you are requesting a
variance.
Fence Guidelines
T 1 1 i 1' .1 1 f 1'
rence permits must oe suumitteu online at cityorsour!�nlax1e.com/omine permits.
n .: A r..- . it _. .. - � r t-!-L
-� Permits mats are required 161 any `1Gnce, vve, I 1GGt 111g11.
=> Perimeter fences over S 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, he 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 -woad), 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 from 615 Brewer Road
4
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 4
AN
" s'
1
vY�•' r y►p"�\._ � 1 - :�'" �t'N<!y 'r'*�At4l.� M.. 1�`��,� r � _, y t _ '+�
� f ` t -.� i61i�i.G'�tM1 'ti M k � l� �� fjy�E}.�•l
`��.�} +_ � � 4 � � � 3 f �l ^� Y «� �'1�1 r{u�1ti�'i �17�� ,4 {� „�, •� � � Rsr�I4+- `� .,.
'' � �,• 1,� ►.t.' �,�er` '=i�.r�l�ill �lo-i, �T��,. `11�r5i+f � Z� �#Y ILA �°l. l 1. ll, Jr�.,y ..:., h.' �•r`-
�' + f � ' .'•�i*{�� n.t'il-'F�7��Yy��K �°' q � �l 1'.(�9, '�'� �.a � _ ry r
Picture 1.2 - Sample offence just doyen the street from 615 Brelver Road
5
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 5
Vt
r ,
�
,
a
r 1�
ME
.,'{" �"'6*h .r , �'tr°�,e r: kt�e� s. ?�::e r „z •k �+ '1 ;fS�'y�
.. ,,.�
MWY l
Picture 1.3 - Sample c fftrice just down the .street frojn 615 Brewer Road
6
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 6
A
F3A
n
✓ r .��, .. �,i�k'ik�rEeAi{s, a. :5��',� .�Lt'!a "T.�?�k�!".. t P
Picture 1.4 Neighbors, nce directly to the east of'the property
7
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 7
Piclure t.5 I ieiit of the back of'the f nce ftotnr the adjacent property east of 615
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
A
'M4
IMAM
Picture IB Picture of foliage atop the waler lower. f weli"e
11
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 11
Picture 1 C -- Fxamrple of Heavier Foliage Adding Additional Height to the Fencelirie
12
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 12
Picture ID Fence becomes a ivall and entrancelexit into eater toWerlphone tois,er 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)
i3
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 13
l
Y
1 � ! x a � ►� tt rr^' .I
big DAK
.PA
.,,. ti=ate
jo
le
1 � st
V
m
Picture .2C — Water tower doubles as a phone tower.
Case No.
ZBA22-0001
16
Attachment C
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-font 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).
rrr .r .i r r•. nr•n n both
.r r r
Granting air parties the privacy they seek improves quality or rite ror both the residents or
615 and the two adjacent homeowners.
i7
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 17
Picture 3A Demonstrating 4-5foot elevation change from 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 view of neighbors ' house to the south (with 6 foot fence)
20
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 20
Picture 3D — Improved view of the Neighbor's house to the east. Visibility with a 9' f nce,
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
a.t
0000�
k
F
i
i
Picture .3r Kist Neighbors'house (please riot' lots of .4Ervice vehicles, all visible with 6
footpiwe.
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:
23
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 ownerls 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 duality 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 adi acent homes, as well as its views of dilavidated surroundinia 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 tar 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 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Notarized signature of all owners is mandatory.
Use additional sheets if necessary.
An n of thn n erty dnnnrihnd in Fhir. n .-Irontinn 1 u ndprstond thn4 m nrnnarN, is
being considered for a Variyy'
Signature of
Owner's Name (Typed or Printed) /✓j k e—/ � �-+���� �
IN
Notary Acknowledgement: Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared
knnwn to me to he the nprsnn whose name i5 Slihsr.rihad to the nhnve and forPoninn instnument and knowlPrdoe to mP t # halshP
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 20�.
' r
Notary Public In and or exas <�Ayb�e
MIRANDA C ZARLING
io�{� ;,�++ pry Public
r�-3 S�,�Id <�r fL\Fia
My commission expires the S day of 20 9�
Nui�uy If) 11 131t'.:41,",2-B
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 forthe purposes and consideration expressed and in the capacity therein stated.
WlYell ullUer aIIV a111J JGGI VI oI IIVG VII 1111J 411G —Y
Notary Public In and For Texas
My commission expires the day of 20
Case No. Attachment C
ZBA22-0001 Page 27
The following photos and commentary have been provided by
the applicant since the March 70, 2022 meeting.
Reagan Rothenberger
From: Tim Wiford >
Seat: Thursday, April 7, 2622 4:26 PM
To: Reagan Rothenberger
Subject: Fence 1 - 615 Brewer Road - 1 of 3
Reagan,
Thank you for your messages, and your efforts around this fencing matter. Here are some pictures.
There are only 2 homes on Brewer Road (so far as I can tell).-
1. Michael Wilkes place. His property driveway is over 50 feet off my fence line (because of the easement).
2. 615 Brewer Road
3. The lot across the street belongs to the ❑insmores, and it is addressed on Florence.
There are only two homes adjacent to the property:
1. The neighbor behind the pool, also addressed on Florence - favors the fence.
2. Michael Wilkes
3. The Dinsmore lot across the street — empty
4. The City of Southlake property
The fence I chose matches nearly all the houses visible from 615 Brewer Road (my fence is newer and of higher quality,
but cedar picket, as with all the others. You can see three other fences in this picture — ail the same cedar picket style as
mine.
Tim
1
�77
L ..
.,Lai
View of the fence from Wilkes house (posts fully covered).
No Text
Reagan Rothenberger
From: Tim Wiford < >
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 4:26 PM
To: Reagan Rothenberger
Subject: Fence 2 - 615 Brewer Road - 2 of 3
Reagan, Thank you for your help -- Page 3.
View of Dinsmore fence from my back porch.
View of my neighbor Michael Wilkes first floor window from my back porch.
%Awl
a � P ■
,.�
�
-.
—a -
Reagan Rothenberger
From: Tim Wiford < >
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 4:27 PM
To: Reagan Rothenberger
Subject: Fence 3 - 615 Brewer Road
Reagan, Thank you for your help. Page 3. Tim
Tim Wiford
Director
403 Canyon Road, Santa Fe, NM 87501
505-982-2403 1 Direct: 214-771-5160
www.wifordqallery.com
1110"fardGallery,�
Space between property line of Wilkes and my fence ranges from 15'9" to 25'. The easement in view ranges from 40'-
50' across according to the survey.
«r .
,-
' '���,..
a +
My fence is consistently 15 feet off the road, so no issues with oncoming traffic.
N
Sent from my I -phone
3
SURVEY
-- L --- — -- ---- — — --
I I �
I I
I
I - I
1 &
a
it
I ` I
qq
RfdF� - 'NfAC'
815 ¢R,EW[Pt PopeQ
dw�w.x rarnww.ner. na n.ry drrrwr.wa� .rr.mure.rr
PRDLINESURVITFUG
rrweltawl� wga�rnwseen
TAX TRACr
3JO
2
Case No. Attachment D
ZBA22-0001 Page 1
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS & RESPONSES
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
2915 SUTTON PL
0.44
NR
4
CONN, GWENDOLYN B
MH
2913SUTTON PL
0.41
NR
5
ANALOVITCH, JAY
MH
2909 SUTTON PL
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, HARVEY D
MH
2919 SUTTON PL
0.42
NR
9
RAPP, WESLEY S
MH
2921 SUTTON PL
0.41
NR
10
MILLER, HARVEY
MH
2917 SUTTON 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
0
14
DINSMORE, BARRY
SF1-B
2903 FLORENCE RD
2.92
0
15
MAXWELL, CHAD
SF1-B
2839 FLORENCE RD
1.64
NR
Responses: F: In Favor O: Opposed To U: Undecided
Notices Sent:
Thirteen (13)
Responses Received: Two (2)
NR: No Response
Case No. Attachment E
ZBA22-0001 Page 1
Notification Response Form
ZBA22-0001
Variance for 615 Brewer Road fence height.
Meeting Date: March 10, 2022 at 6:30 PM
Fill out:
Owner:
Address: ,
City, State, Zip Code:ci
Direct questions and mail responses to:
City of Southlake
Planning & Development Services
Notification Response
1400 Main St Ste 310
5outhlake, TX 76092
Phone: (817)748-8621
Fax: (817)748-8077
E-mail: rrothenberger@ci.southlake.tx.us
PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY
BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING.
Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby
in favor of opposed undecided about
6
(circle or underline one)
the proposed Variance referenced above.
Space for comments regarding your position:
Signature:
Additional Signature:
Date: u�
Date:
Printed Names):
Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are in inted at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One farm per property.
Phone Number (optional):
Barry Dinsmore
2903 Florence RD
South la ke TX 76092
817-614-8251
City of Southlake ZBA22-0001
To whom it may concern
First, I would like to start with, this is a flip house for Mr. Wiford. He resides in
Plano / Frisco. We did speak with Mr. Wiford about the fence however our
conversation was nothing like he has explained. We did tell him it was his
property to do with what he wanted, but a 9' fence around the complete property
in our opinion was a little strange. His ultimate goal in having a conversation with
us was to get information regarding the fencing on our back acre across from his
flip house. We just replaced the fencing on the rest of the property and he was
concerned with the time frame of when the back would be replaced and which
side of the fence would be facing his property. He was interested in our plans in
order to get top dollar for his house.
Second, his directions of North, South, East, and West are'incorrect. The pics he
provided as current pics with his fence up still able to see all the "junk" are taken
from an upstairs window not from the ground floor of the house. 3C-3D and the
last pic showing the "deteriorating 8' fence and dilapidated warehouse." Pic 3B is
facing North not South, Pic 3C is facing East and taken from an upstairs window
with the new 9' fence not the old 6' fence. Pic 3❑ is facing North and captures
some of the neighbor's house but mostly the house that is located on Florence RD
adjacent to mine at 2903 Florence. Pic 3E is also facing North.
What Mr. Wiford has done he made a mistake in putting up a 9' fence. Now he is
throwing ALL his neighbors and their properties as well as the city and city
properties under the BUS. The city traffic is not what he says it is. The elevation of
his property is no different than mine except we are on two different ends of the
block / street.
In closing there is no unique conditions or circumstances @ 615 Brewer that the
rest of us do not deal with on this street except for the fact that we did not buy a
house to flip and make mega money on and throwing every neighbor as well as
the city under the bus to do so. The 8' fence on my property has been sufficient
for 20 plus years. I can stand on my back retaining wall and walkway and see into
every other back yard and that has never bothered me in the 35 years I have been
here. Shame on you Mr. Wiford for making a mistake and blaming it on everyone
else.
DoctiSign Envelope JR C536E2E2-48EC 4607-91BF-16650CF604DI
Notification Response Farm
ZBA22-0001
Variance for 615 Brewer Road fence height,
Meeting Date: March 10, 2022 at 6:30 PM
Fill out:
Owner: Richard,M, WilkcN
Address: 605 Brewer Rd.
City, State, Zip Code: Southlake. -1 N 16092
Direct questions and snail responses to:
City of Southlake
Planning & Development Services
Notification Response
1400 Villain St Ste 310
Southlake, TX 76092
Phone: (817)748.8621
Fax: (817)748-1077
E-mail: rrothenberger@ci.southiake.tx.us
PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY
BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING.
Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby
in favor of [opposed to F undecided about
(circle or underline one)
the proposed Variance referenced above.
Space for comments regarding your position:
As Fee (honer of the property directly to the North of 615 Brewer Rd.. I oppose dic granting of a Variance to Zoning Ordinance 480as amended_ Section 39.1 which
would allow the illegally installed 9' Icnec to rcinain. Thu application is inadrttis.iblc on it's lace based on the u>itccuracics contamcd within the document uscit Spccilicallv'.
every mention ofthc adjacent picpcmcros is wrongly oriented to the North arrows provided on the exhibits labeled "Vicmity Map" and "Nrinicicr of 1'raposcd Fcnce Replacement
at 615 Brewer Road, Soutblake, TV. This error is repeated numerous times throughout the document thereby deeming all the eIaiins false and the applicatinn null
Irrespective. of these factual errors, page 13, Section 2 of the dLie urn cnt states that "The higher fence drowns out %tnc of the sounds from and views of city vehicles coming and
going to the water tower throughout ncu day." The docurnent additionally acknowledges that the water tower is simultaneously a cell tower and that "cotnrriurrications trucks come
and go as weir." 1 he last paragraph states plainly that "A 9-flout tencc blocks dic view of the ... nittmcipal and sc-vice vehicles driving by.
t'hc fact, as ctcarly stated by the applicant, that the tencc blocky the view of the rclanvcly heavy traffic using the road is the primary reason for my oppo-mlon to it.
I have two new drivers in the house. The 9' fence reduces visibility of vehicles approaching troth the south .o that one must hack almost into (lie street betorc visibility
is clear. In addition, I have six young grandchildren and three dogs who may not he visible to vehicle., approaching from the south or who may not themselves see of
hear oncoming vehicles clue to the fcnc:c's ability to minimize sight and sound, thereby causing a very icgitinrate potential for extreme bodily injury and even death.
Lastly, Samuel T. Wrfoid resides in Frisco, 'IX. has bought the property at 615 13rewri Road ati an investnrcrit and, by his own admission. has no intention of residhrig there.
Signature:
—Docu5igned by:
RICHARD WILKES
Date: 3/9/2022 1 9:51:53
uocuslgimm by,
Additional Signature: ' Date: 3/9/2022 i 12:46:14
.47 FtK]AEd3EHft6C]4
Printed Names): "cWi' WILKES Sill Wilkes
Must be property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property.
Phone Number (optional):