Coppell panel denies homeowner’s request to legalize carport after Board of Adjustment rejection

A majority of the Coppell Planning and Zoning Commission on Nov. 21 denied a request to rezone a single lot so an existing freestanding carport could remain in its current location.

The action followed a staff recommendation against the rezoning and a public hearing at which the homeowner and more than a dozen neighbors spoke. Mary Boswell, planning staff, told the Commission that the carport and other work at 552 Arborbrook Lane were constructed without permits between May and October 2022 and that the structure sits about 9 inches from the side property line, where an SF‑12 zoning district requires a roughly 9‑foot side yard setback. Boswell said the owner pursued, and was denied, a variance from the Board of Adjustment on Sept. 5, 2024; the Board concluded no hardship existed that would justify permitting the encroachment.

Owner Derek Bunnell told the Commission the carport was built because both family vehicles would not fit in the two‑car garage and to protect vehicles from weather and falling tree limbs. Bunnell presented neighborhood photos and a petition he said contained more than 115 signatures, and he asked the Commission to rezone only his lot to a Planned Development that would allow the carport under strict conditions including engineer‑sealed plans. "This really has been a blessing in disguise," Bunnell said, describing neighborhood support and the protection the structure provided to his truck after a large branch fell on it.

Several neighbors testified in favor, citing safety, design quality and precedent from a 2022 Sherwood Park decision that rezoned a neighborhood to accommodate similar structures. Neighbors who supported the request included builders, architects and real estate agents who said they saw no evidence the carport hurt property values.

But commissioners repeatedly returned to the same two points: that the carport was built without required permits and that the Board of Adjustment—whose role is to judge hardship—had denied a variance. Chairman Haas said he admired the work but was concerned about precedent and enforcement of the city's zoning standards. "I cannot support this only because of what we face if we allow this," Haas said, describing the risk of encouraging after‑the‑fact construction followed by rezoning requests.

A motion to approve the PD request failed for lack of a second. A subsequent motion to deny approval of PD‑319 passed on roll call, 3–1 (Blankenship Aye; Chairman Haas Aye; Haefmann Nay; Bishop Aye), effectively leaving the carport nonconforming and requiring the owner to pursue other remedies if he wishes to retain the structure.

The Commission’s denial does not itself order demolition; it rejects the rezoning mechanism the owner sought to legalize the carport. Code‑enforcement and building‑permit processes remain available to staff and the homeowner. The applicant may pursue an appeal to district court of the Board of Adjustment decision (which the applicant declined previously) or pursue alternate design or remodeling options that meet setback requirements.