Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Carport Case topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects rezoning request to legalize carport at 552 Arborbrook Lane
Summary
After a public hearing with neighborhood support, the council voted down a planned-development request to allow a carport that encroaches on the side-yard setback; applicant said contractor built without permit and neighborhood petition backed the request.
The Coppell City Council denied a rezoning request Jan. 14 that would have allowed a carport constructed at 552 Arborbrook Lane to remain in its current location despite encroaching into the required side-yard setback.
Planning staff told council the carport and other improvements were constructed in 2022 without permits, and a building permit applied for after construction was denied because the carport did not meet the zoning ordinance's setback requirements. The owner, Derek Bunnell, said the narrow driveway made two covered parking spaces effectively impossible without a carport and described the structure as a needed hardship. “I just want to use and enjoy my property within the rights I believe I have,” Bunnell said during the hearing.
Bunnell presented a neighborhood petition showing strong local support; staff said they sent notices as required and that the Board of Adjustment had denied a hardship variance in September 2024. Several neighbors testified in favor, including Randy Hartley and Sarah Hicks, who said the owners have improved the property and are good neighbors. An affected adjacent property owner opposed the request; staff said that neighbor cited access to her fence and property-value concerns.
Council members discussed the balance between neighborhood preferences and uniform enforcement of zoning setbacks across the city. Council member Walker raised concern that approving an exception could create precedent and undermine expectations across thousands of Coppell homeowners that setbacks are enforced; other members cited the contractor's responsibility to obtain permits and the difficulty of making an exception in a way that would not open similar claims citywide.
Council Member Hill moved to approve the planned-development rezoning with conditions; the motion was seconded by Council Member Prem Kumar but failed on the vote. The meeting record shows the opposition roster and that the motion did not pass; no rezoning or permit was granted at the Jan. 14 meeting.
Ending: The application remains denied as a result of the council vote; the applicant may pursue other lawful remedies, including building changes, an alternative application process, or legal appeal as allowed under local procedures.
