Loading...
Item 4C - Surrounding Property Responses Outlook Online Form Submittal: Planning & Zoning Case Input Form From noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Date Wed 9/2/2026 11:21 PM To Dennis Killough <dkillough@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Jennifer Crosby <jcrosby@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Melissa Burnett <mburnett@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Wayne Powell <wpowell@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Ryan Firestone <rfirestone@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Cyndi Cheng <ccheng@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Avery Price <aprice@ci.southlake.tx.us> Planning & Zoning Case Input Form Project Name Plat Revision Case ZA26-0056 Planning &Zoning Case ZA26-0056 Number Project Location 1201 and 1203 Scenic Drive I am: Opposed Comments/ Explanation My name is Ryan Asprion and my family and I are Southlake residents. Our property address is 1304 Oakhurst Drive, which sits next to the subject property. I am opposed to the plat revisions and encourage you to deny Mr. Myers'variance request because his request does not align with city planning goals, municipal codes, and community impact. Granting the Plat Revision request would negatively affect: 1. Neighborhood Character&Zoning Integrity •This could set a bad Precedent: Granting an exception creates a slippery slope. It opens the door for other property owners to demand the same variance, effectively rewriting the neighborhood's zoning laws without a formal public process. •This could lead to Density and overdevelopment: The current zoning laws were established to maintain a specific density. Subdividing this lot violates the established Master Plan or Comprehensive Plan of the neighborhood. •This variance is Out of character for the neighborhood: Introducing a smaller, crammed lot disrupts the existing architectural rhythm, open spaces, and setback patterns of the street. • Rental Properties decrease value of the surrounding homes in the neighborhood: Given that the owner lives in Florida and is currently renting out the home on his current lot, it is safe to assume that if allowed to build another home, it will also be a rental, and possibly be occupied by multiple/extended families at one time. 2. Infrastructure & have a negative Environmental Impact • It would affect Traffic and parking:Adding a new residential unit increases vehicle traffic.As we all know, a rental property often brings multiple cars that will overflow onto the street. • Utility strain:Additional housing also puts a higher demand on local infrastructure, including sewer lines, water pressure, and power grids, which may not be rated for increased density. • Stormwater runoff: Building a second structure also reduces permeable green space. This increases rainwater runoff and can cause localized flooding or drainage issues for adjacent properties. We already have a house in front of his and one in front of mine that floods at times. Likewise, this property, as I understand it, is in 100 year flood plain. I ask you all to consider the Legal Standard for Variances • No inherent hardship: Legally, a zoning variance or exception should only be granted if the owner faces an "unnecessary hardship" unique to the land itself. In this case, the owner can use the property under current laws; he is simply choosing to subdivide for financial gain. • Self-created hardship: The owner bought the property knowing its current zoning limits. The desire to maximize profit is a self-created circumstance, which is legally insufficient ground for a municipal variance. I also ask you to consider the lack of Property Management& Absentee Landlords •There would be a Lack of oversight: This owner does not live in Texas and property management seems absent based on the current rental home already on his existing lot. Because the owner does not live on-site, there is a higher risk of deferred maintenance, code violations, and unkept grounds. There is one last thing I'd like to point out just to be sure there is no confusion. I have never flip-flopped on this issue. The last time I received one of these hearing notices in the mail, it proposed a plat revision of my own lot. I want to be absolutely clear that my husband and I never agreed to that application for plat revision, nor did either of us sign the application which the city informed us contained our signatures. It was only after I notified the city of the fraudulent signatures on the application that it was withdrawn by Mr. Myers. We are and have always been opposed to a plat revision for the aforementioned reasons. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Ryan Asprion 1304 Oakhurst Drive Southlake, Texas 76092 469-544-7451 (Section Break) First Name Ryan Last Name Asprion Address 1304 Oakhurst Dr. Phone Number(Optional) 469-544-7451 City Southlake State TX Zip 76092 Disclaimer This form is to provide feedback on planning & zoning-related requests. Your comments are placed in the related case file as a matter of public record and forwarded to the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council if action is required by these bodies. Your submission of this form shall not be considered a formal protest under Section 211.006(d) of the Texas Local Government Code unless your signature is uploaded and submitted with this form. 'Please note any forms submitted after four P.M. on the meeting date may not be recorded until the following business day.*** Disclaimer Acknowledgment Yes, I understand Signature (For Formal Plat Revision Protest Form -Opposed.pdf Protests) Email not displaying correctly?View it in your browser. Outlook Online Form Submittal: Planning & Zoning Case Input Form From noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Date Thu 9/3/2026 9:32 AM To Dennis Killough <dkillough@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Jennifer Crosby <jcrosby@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Melissa Burnett <mburnett@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Wayne Powell <wpowell@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Ryan Firestone <rfirestone@ci.southlake.tx.us>; Cyndi Cheng <ccheng@ci.southlake.tx.us>;Avery Price <aprice@ci.southlake.tx.us> Planning & Zoning Case Input Form Project Name Proposed Plat Revision on Scenic Planning &Zoning Case ZA26-0056 Number Project Location 1201 and 1203 Scenic I am: Opposed Comments/ Explanation I am opposed to the plat revisions and encourage you to deny the plat revision request because the request does not align with city planning goals, municipal codes, and community impact. Granting the Plat Revision request would negatively affect: 1. Neighborhood Character&Zoning Integrity •This could set a bad Precedent: Granting an exception creates a slippery slope. It opens the door for other property owners to demand the same variance, effectively rewriting the neighborhood's zoning laws without a formal public process. •This could lead to Density and overdevelopment: The current zoning laws were established to maintain a specific density. Subdividing this lot violates the established Master Plan or Comprehensive Plan of the neighborhood. •This variance is Out of character for the neighborhood: Introducing a smaller, crammed lot disrupts the existing architectural rhythm, open spaces, and setback patterns of the street. • Rental Properties decrease value of the surrounding homes in the neighborhood: Given that the owner lives in Florida and is currently renting out the home on his current lot, it is safe to assume that if allowed to build another home, it will also be a rental, and possibly be occupied by multiple/extended families at one time. 2. Infrastructure & have a negative Environmental Impact • It would affect Traffic and parking:Adding a new residential unit increases vehicle traffic.As we all know, a rental property often brings multiple cars that will overflow onto the street. • Utility strain:Additional housing also puts a higher demand on local infrastructure, including sewer lines, water pressure, and power grids, which may not be rated for increased density. • Stormwater runoff: Building a second structure also reduces permeable green space. This increases rainwater runoff and can cause localized flooding or drainage issues for adjacent properties. We already have a house in front of his and one in front of mine that floods at times. Likewise, this property, as I understand it, is in 100 year flood plain. I ask you all to consider the Legal Standard for Variances • No inherent hardship: Legally, a zoning variance or exception should only be granted if the owner faces an "unnecessary hardship" unique to the land itself. In this case, the owner can use the property under current laws; he is simply choosing to subdivide for financial gain. • Self-created hardship: The owner bought the property knowing its current zoning limits. The desire to maximize profit is a self-created circumstance, which is legally insufficient ground for a municipal variance. Property Management&Absentee Landlords •There would be a Lack of oversight: This owner does not live in Texas and property management seems absent based on the current rental home already on his existing lot. Because the owner does not live on-site, there is a higher risk of deferred maintenance, code violations, and unkept grounds. If you'd like personal reasons, I'd prefer not to look out my bedroom windows and see a house right next me, nor to have 4-5 cars parked on our street, nor to have my property value decrease. The subject property owner already built a fence in violation of the governing ordinances which ya'II then allowed to stay and which completely blocks what was once our open view. I will also submit a personally signed form in person at the 9/3/26 meeting so that it is on record as a formal protest. (Section Break) First Name Rene Last Name Asprion Address 1304 Oakhurst Dr. Phone Number(Optional) 214-546-1670 City Southlake State TX Zip 76092 Disclaimer This form is to provide feedback on planning & zoning-related requests. Your comments are placed in the related case file as a matter of public record and forwarded to the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council if action is required by these bodies. Your submission of this form shall not be considered a formal protest under Section 211.006(d) of the Texas Local Government Code unless your signature is uploaded and submitted with this form. ***Please note any forms submitted after four P.M. on the meeting date may not be recorded until the following business day.*** Disclaimer Acknowledgment Yes, I understand Signature (For Formal Plat Revision Protest Form - Rene Opposed.pdf Protests) Email not displaying correctly?View it in your browser. Notification Response Form ZA26-0056: Direct questions and matt responses to: Plat Revision for 1201 & 1203 Scenic Drive City of Southlake P8Z Meeting Date: September 3, 2026 Planning S Develarpr merit Services Notiification Response Fill out: 1400 Main St; Ste 310 f Southtake,TX 7602 r Oa+nrr: �IFtanS b C �e Yl e+d Phone: (817)748-86►21 k Address: 13 0 O N K` "^ City. State, Zip Code `�i PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY `x BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the ro arty so mated above. are hereby in favor of (oLppos:edo undecided about (circerline one) the proposed application referenced above_ :9 Space for comments regarding your position: Southlake regulates lot sizes, drainage, tree preservation, etc.. and splitting the land would alter the neighborhood character and density. The new houses would most likely not meet setback requirements. An overcrowded lot would harm property values of all the homes on Oakhurst Drive and Scenic Drive. More houses add more traffic, more concrete will increase rainwater runoff and put a strain on the many drainage issues we already have in our neighborhood. We ask you to deny this request for plat revision. Signature: Date: �7 l Additional Signature: Date: N' Printed Name(s): '� tylAc Must be property owner(s). ?Otherwise contact the Planning Departrnent. One form per property. NPhone Number(optional): I