The Colleyville Planning and Zoning Commission denied a request to amend the Oak Alley planned unit development ordinance that would have removed a 25-foot landscape easement on Lot 14 (7313 Callaway Court), preventing the property owner from installing the swimming pool they proposed.

The denial came after a public hearing and a lengthy discussion: Commissioner Richard Remley made the motion to deny, Commissioner David Groves seconded it, and the measure failed on a 5–2 vote (Groves, Ebert, Remley, Arnold and Bevel voted to deny; Commissioners Savoy and Obinabo voted nay).

The question before the commission was whether to adopt an ordinance amendment limited to a single lot that would eliminate the landscape easement that runs along Oak Alley’s eastern boundary. Staff said the amendment would apply only to Lot 14 but noted that, because the neighborhood is regulated by a PUD ordinance, the city had to notify the entire subdivision and properties within the 500-foot notice area. Staff reported receiving 16 letters in favor and 10 in opposition and calculated opposition at roughly 14 percent in the notice area (below the 20 percent threshold that would trigger a super‑majority requirement for council action). Staff said it was neutral on the request.

Applicant’s case: The homeowners who purchased Lot 14 — identified in the record as the Bridal family — told commissioners the easement had a “disproportionate impact” on their lot because of the lot’s shape and orientation. Presenting photographs and renderings, the applicant said the easement left insufficient usable yard area for a safe, family-sized pool and said they had tried to work with neighbors and designers to find a compliant alternative that would meet safety concerns. “We just want a simple, reasonable pool,” the applicant said.

Opposition and history: Neighbors and former city officials who negotiated the Oak Alley development urged the commission to preserve the easement. George Dodson, who said he served multiple terms on Colleyville’s City Council and previously chaired planning-related bodies, said he was “in strong opposition to this request” and reminded commissioners that the development’s approval was the result of multi‑year negotiations focused on drainage, lot layout and buffering. Mark Godfridson, identified as president of the Tanglewood Homeowners Association, told the commission that all 12 Tanglewood lots adjacent to the easement opposed the change. Barbara Bradshaw, an adjacent homeowner, described ongoing noise and sight‑line concerns and said, “I can hear whole conversations,” underscoring neighbors’ worry about privacy and potential noise from pools.

Commissioners’ reasoning: Commissioners who voted to deny emphasized that the 25-foot landscape easement had been a negotiated concession made to surrounding homeowners to create a buffer where back yards would face the new development’s street. Several commissioners and speakers said approving an exception for one lot could invite similar requests for other PUDs and weaken the credibility of negotiated protections. Commissioners who voted against denial said they were sympathetic to the applicants’ circumstances and thought a tailored, as‑applied amendment could be justified; that position did not carry the vote.

Clarifying details: The easement at issue is 25 feet wide and was included in the materials submitted with the Oak Alley PUD approval process (applicants and staff referenced a binding letter of intent / maintenance association agreement dated 06/25/2018 that describes the 25‑foot landscape easement). Staff noted the applicant’s lot is about 30,000 square feet (roughly 0.68 acre) and that the amendment under consideration would have applied only to Lot 14; all other PUD language would have remained unchanged.

What the commission decided: The commission’s motion to deny the requested PUD amendment passed 5–2. The form of action recorded in the public meeting minutes: motion to deny case ZC25-26 (mover: Commissioner Remley; second: Commissioner Groves); vote — Groves (aye), Ebert (aye), Savoy (nay), Obinabo (nay), Remley (aye), Arnold (aye), Bevel (aye); outcome — denied.

Next steps and context: Because this was a zoning amendment to a PUD, the commission’s recommendation is advisory to City Council for final legislative action when required by the municipal process; the denial at the commission level means the applicant would need to either redesign to comply with the existing easement, submit an appeal or pursue an alternative plan. Several speakers suggested homeowners associations and deed‑restriction processes would be an additional channel for resolving contested uses of easement areas.

The debate drew multiple residents and former officials and occupied a significant portion of the evening’s agenda, reflecting longstanding neighborhood negotiations surrounding Oak Alley and Colleyville’s use of landscape easements as buffers for adjacent residents.