Trophy Club ZBA hears homeowner plea for fence setback exception; motion to deny falls short of required votes

A split board at the Trophy Club Zoning Board of Adjustment hearing on Nov. 6 left unresolved a homeowner’s request for a setback exception after members failed to reach the supermajority required to adopt a decision.

Matt Cox, the town’s director of community development, told the board that the zoning ordinance requires a 10‑foot setback from the front elevation for the type of fence the homeowner requested and that staff therefore recommended the board deny the special‑exception application. “Staff recommends zoning board of adjustment conduct a public hearing and move to deny the request made by homeowner John Schrober,” Cox said during the staff report.

Homeowner John Schrober told the board he was asking to place a five‑foot wrought‑iron fence about 4 feet closer to his front elevation than allowed so the fence post would not fall where he plans to add a large side window. Schrober described two positions for the fence, said neighbors on both sides had told him they were comfortable with the plan, and said the fence would create a secure side yard for a professionally trained working dog. “It puts a fence post right in the middle of where we want to put a window,” Schrober said, explaining his requested location.

Board members questioned whether a planned window — a future change to the house — constituted the kind of current hardship the ZBA’s variance standard requires. Members also discussed alternatives raised on the record, including moving the gutter, shifting the fence behind the dining‑room wall, or changing the window size. Cox noted that utility hookups (Atmos) are placed variably and that fence placement is not always driven by utility access.

After discussion, a member moved to decline the request and the motion was seconded. Members then voted aloud. The record shows aye and nay responses but not four affirmative votes; at one point a board member said, “Gotta have 4,” and later the chair told the applicant, “Motion fails is not approved.” The minutes and on‑the‑floor statements contain conflicting language: some speakers described the case as denied immediately after the voice vote, while the chair later recorded that the motion failed for lack of the required supermajority. The transcript does not show a subsequent clear, formal action resolving that ambiguity.

What this means procedurally is unclear from the record. Cox had advised the board of the ordinance standard requiring a 75% affirmative vote for board decisions; because that number was not reached, the motion to deny did not carry during the recorded vote. The applicant thanked the board and left after the vote; no follow‑up hearing date or next procedural step was announced in the meeting record.

Authorities and background: the board considered the request under the town zoning ordinance provisions for fencing, retaining walls and screening (staff cited section 14.02.351 and related code sections) and followed the public‑hearing notice process, including 200‑foot mail notices and a newspaper notice. The town’s orientation presentation also reminded members that appeals of ZBA decisions go to Denton County court rather than to town council.

The board’s record includes neighbor correspondence (an email or letter from Terry Kesterson) that a board member said was on file; the applicant disputed that he had seen the letter prior to the hearing. The meeting transcript records several possible alternatives discussed by the board, but no final, clearly adopted action to permit or deny the homeowner’s requested setback exception.

The file for case ZBA25‑0052721 (2721 Trophy Club Drive) remains the procedural reference for any next steps; the transcript does not show a formal continuance or a clarified written determination at the meeting’s close.