Zoning board rejects Poly America request to move and raise perimeter fence near Manning/Holland streets
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
The Zoning Board voted 6-3 Jan. 22 to deny a variance that would have allowed Poly America to place and raise a perimeter fence to the property line and to increase the transparent fence height to eight feet. Residents raised property‑line and access concerns; staff said county records and a third‑party survey support the applicant’s boundary.
The Grand Prairie Zoning Board of Adjustments on Jan. 22 denied a variance request from Poly America that would have allowed a non‑required fence to be placed on the property line and increased the maximum height of a transparent fence to 8 feet along portions of 13201 West Marshall Lane and adjacent parcels.
Poly America sought the relief (case ZBA24‑12‑0059) to close existing gaps in a perimeter fence and to continue an eight‑foot wrought‑iron fence along its property line. Company representatives said the gaps had allowed trespassing, dumping and ATV access; they said the proposed alignment would place the fence at existing property lines shown in county records and in an independent survey.
Company witnesses included a contractor and in‑house representatives who described daily cleanup and trespassing incidents. Planning staff said 202 notices were mailed; 0 returned in favor and 1 returned in opposition by the time of the hearing. Staff did not object to the variance as requested but proposed conditions limiting the height relief to transparent fences and requiring compliance with the UDC visibility requirements.
Several residents opposed the request in person and by letter, advancing two primary themes: (1) they asserted that the property‑line survey the applicant presented conflicts with historic ownership of small residential parcels behind the site and (2) they said the fence would remove access and egress from back yards that currently function like an alley or emergency route. Speakers asked whether the county record and any survey had been verified and expressed concern about emergency access and fire‑safety egress.
City legal counsel said land‑ownership records are maintained at the county; staff confirmed Poly America had submitted a third‑party survey (Graham & Associates) that showed the areas in question as company property. Legal advised that disputes over title or boundary lines are civil matters for the courts; the city’s role in the variance hearing is limited to zoning relief (setback and height) rather than adjudicating title.
Board members asked whether the fire marshal and floodplain requirements had been addressed; staff reported that related reviews (floodplain and fire marshal) had cleared the proposed fence plan and that permit review would include confirmation of gates and emergency access (Knox‑box or similar arrangements).
At the close of the hearing, a motion to approve the variance — including staff‑recommended conditions — failed on a 3‑6 vote. The denial means Poly America cannot move the fence to the property line or raise the transparent sections to 8 feet without further action (such as filing a revised application, pursuing a civil resolution of boundary disputes, or seeking an appeal).