Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Coppell abates substandard Willow Springs fence, bills owner $1,600; further yard violations to be pursued separately
Summary
City staff executed an abatement warrant April 3 to remove a hazardous rear fence at 433 Willow Springs Drive, billed the owner $1,600 and recommended the commission issue an order of discharge; staff found additional rubbish/debris violations that will be handled as a separate code case.
Get email alerts on the Fence Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City of Coppell staff removed a deteriorated rear fence at 433 Willow Springs Drive on April 3 under an abatement warrant, billed the owner $1,600 for the work and asked the Building and Standards Commission to formally close the matter, staff said during an April 3 hearing.
Desiree Bealman told the commission the one‑story house has a rear wood fence of more than 50 feet that was in disrepair despite multiple notices to the owner and resident dating back to June 2023. The fence had been found substandard and ordered removed by March 14, 2025; the owner did not remove it, and staff obtained an abatement warrant and removed the fence on April 3. Staff said the fencing removal cost approximately $1,600 and that if the owner does not pay that bill the city will assess additional fees and may file a lien against the property.
During abatement staff discovered separate violations — collection of rubbish and outside storage in the rear yard — that were not included in the original warrant. Bealman said those issues will be processed through the city’s usual code‑compliance legal channel and are not part of this abatement. The commission voted unanimously to accept staff’s recommendation and issue an order of discharge to remove the fence matter from the commission docket.
Staff presented before and after photos to the commission showing the fence condition and the effect of the abatement. The record shows municipal‑court filings were made earlier in the case and both parties failed to appear; the matter proceeded to the Building and Standards Commission where staff judged the fence beyond repair and a public nuisance.

