Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Fences topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and staff spar over fence that was removed and replaced on Oakcrest Hills corner lot
Summary
At a first reading, Colleyville council heard competing claims over a corner fence permit error: city staff said the permit was approved in error and the city replaced the fence; the homeowner says she incurred private costs and now seeks permission for an 8‑foot wood fence at the property line.
The council held a first reading and public hearing on a special use permit request allowing a fence to extend into the street‑side yard setback at 405 Oakcrest Hills Drive. The property is a corner lot zoned R‑20 and the applicant seeks to replace an existing chain‑link fence with an 8‑foot solid cedar fence placed at the property line, which would conflict with the city’s street‑side setback rules.
City staff explained the regulatory background: the land development code requires solid, opaque fences to meet the full side‑yard setback (30 feet in the zoning district) to preserve sight lines at corners; open‑design fences (for example wrought iron) may be located closer. The Planning and Zoning Commission examined earlier similar cases and recommended a compromise: allow non‑opaque fencing at the property line or allow temporary vegetative screening for up to 12 months while plantings establish.
Ben Bridal, director of community development, said staff is neutral on the current request. He told council the permit for a solid fence was erroneously approved by a staff reviewer; the contractor removed the old fence and began work before staff noticed the error. Because the work was halted before the new fence was installed, the city paid to reinstall a brand‑new chain‑link fence at the original line to restore the property to the prior condition, Bridal said.
Homeowner Margo Presnall told council she and her husband spent $3,800 to remove vines and tear out the original fence and had expected to replace it with a wood fence; she said the new city‑installed chain link did not compensate for her private costs and left the family without the privacy they sought. Staff said officials offered a temporary secured fence option when the removal occurred and suggested leniency in permitting given the city’s error, but the homeowner rejected temporary fencing and requested the solid wood fence. Council members discussed fairness and consistency, noting many nearby properties have older fences at the line and asking whether the city should require all such fences to comply with the current code when replaced.
No action was taken; the matter returns to council for final action on May 13. Planning and Zoning had recommended approval of temporary screening and a less‑opaque fence in line with recent precedent; staff retained an easement for future utilities along the right of way.
