Council holds first readings on three special‑use permits to allow front‑yard fences

The Colleyville City Council on July 1 held first readings and public hearings on three separate special‑use permit requests that would allow fences to extend forward of a home’s front facade or into required street‑side setbacks. No final action was taken; the items were presented for first reading and will return for further consideration.

Staff presented each request and noted applicable standards in the land development code. The three properties and requests were:

- 5820 Bransford Road (Ordinance O‑25‑2334): Applicant requested a special‑use permit to allow a 6‑foot wrought‑iron fence with masonry columns to extend beyond the front facade and be located along the front property line on a lot of 37,652 square feet (the code threshold for allowing front‑line fences without a special permit is 40,000 square feet). Planning and Zoning recommended approval 5‑0; staff recommended approval. The applicant, Ashraf Shehada (owner/applicant), said he also owns the adjacent vacant lot (5816) and wishes to match fencing along approximately 1,500 feet of frontage.

- 600 Hunter Trail (Ordinance O‑25‑2335): This corner lot (approximately 30,767 square feet) has an existing fence and the applicant asked to extend the fence closer to the street to align with a neighboring fence; the proposed extension would place the fence about 8 feet from the property line (18 feet from the curb). Planning and Zoning recommended a reduced alignment that ties into the neighbor’s corner fence (recommended by a 4‑1 vote); staff reported being neutral. The council heard staff explanation; the applicant was not present.

- 6701 Carriage Lane (Ordinance O‑25‑2336): A corner lot in a planned unit development, the property owner replaced an existing wood fence within the street‑side setback without a permit and subsequently applied for the special‑use permit to legalize a wood fence approximately 16 feet from the property line (about 26 feet from the curb). Staff said the owner immediately initiated the approval process after being notified; Planning and Zoning recommended approval 5‑0. Staff noted a single written opposition was received and that a non‑opaque (wrought‑iron) fence would have been permitted closer to the property line under current rules.

All three items were first readings; council opened and closed the public hearings and did not vote on final ordinances at the July 1 meeting. Staff said notices were mailed to surrounding property owners for each item and the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the requests on June 9 and issued the votes reported above. If council later approves the ordinances, the actions will amend the official zoning map and zoning ordinance for each property and will include penalty language consistent with ordinance drafts presented at first reading.