01/08/2019 MinutesSPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
CITY OF PARIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CITY OF PARIS - CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
PARIS, TEXAS
TUESDAY JANUARY 8 2019
12:00 O'CLOCK P.M.
The Board of Adjustment meeting was called to order by David Hamilton, Chairman at
12:05 p. m.
The following members were present: David Hamilton, Brady Fisher, A.W. Clem,
Louise Hagood and Benny Plata.
Also present was Carla Easton, John Ankrum, Stephanie Harris, John Godwin and
concerned citizens.
2. Approval of minutes from previous meeting. (September 4, 2018)
Motion was made by Benny Plata, seconded by A.W. Clem to approve minutes for the
September 4h, 2018 meeting. Motion carried 5-0.
Public hearing to consider and take action on the petition of Rick Maxwell on Lot 6,
Block E, of the Meadow Park addition, being located at 720 SW 42nd Street.
The petition requested a variance of Sections 11.5-3 (b) (la -d) of the Fence Ordinance
which provides as follows:
(b) Fence heights:
(1) Front yard fence requirements.
a. No fence shall be permitted in the front yard with the following exceptions:
i. On lots zoned historic overlay district (HD) and in accordance with the design
standards adopted by the historic preservation commission.
ii. On lots in excess of two (2) acres in size which are used for single-family residential
purposes.
iii. On lots which are zoned and used for LI or HI purposes.
b. If permitted, ornamental fences may be permitted in a front yard in residentially zoned
areas if not designed or serving as an enclosure. Ornamental fences include such things as
split rail, picket, decorated metal, and brick fences, but not such things as chain-link,
wire, or other similar fences.
c. In residentially zoned areas, no fence over forty-two (42) inches in height above the
average grade of the yard shall be permitted from the front building line to the street
right-of-way line.
d. In residentially zoned areas, all front yard fences shall have a minimum of fifty (50)
percent open area for passage of air and light.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a front yard fence at 720 SW 42nd Street.
This property is not located in the historic overlay district; the lot does not exceed two (2)
acres and is not zoned for industrial purposes. The proposed fence is not an ornamental
fence with a minimum of fifty percent area for passage of air and light.
Public hearing was declared open.
Carla Easton, the City Engineer, summarizes the sections of which the variances were
requested; she then references a photo of a similar fence on the same street, classified as a
legal non -conforming fence, that the applicant wishes to mimic. She goes on to inform
the board that the non -conforming fence was not permitted or granted a variance, but has
been there prior to 2005 and a letter will be sent to the property owner to notify them that
if ever removed or damaged the fence could not be permitted as it is without the proper
permits and variances. Louise Hagood inquires if the non -conforming fence is the only
one on the street and Carla tells her yes.
A.W. Clem inquires about why the applicant was proposing the privacy fence on the one
side and if there was an issue with the neighbor. Carla informs the board that there was
no clear reasoning or hardship. David Hamilton also clarifies that there was no clear
hardship indicated on the application. A.W. Clem also asks if there were rules or
regulations required by the neighborhood to which Carla replies that she is not aware of
that and that the city does not enforce restricted governments on private property, only
our Fence Regulations and our ordinances.
Benny Plata inquires about why ornamental fences are the only fence types allowed and
why there has to be the open air concept. Carla then explains that typically in a residential
neighborhood there is uniformity looking down the block and when not in a historical
district or industrial area people want to see similar front yards. She also explains when
one drives down the street it is expected and desired to see consistency in front yards and
have the open feel. Carla also states that since front yard fences are typically reserved for
the Historical District, ornamental fences such as a picket fence or cast iron are more
appropriate than a privacy fence that would create a barrier, obstruct the view of the
structure, not visually pleasing and potentially a safety hazard. A.W. Clem and David
Hamilton agree that it could potentially dangerous and that it would not be visually
pleasing. Mr. Clem also states that a privacy fence is appropriate for a back yard, but not
for a front yard.
Rick Maxwell, the property owner, spoke in favor of the petition. He explains that the
fence would be for privacy from the neighbors and since the proposed fence will stop
thirteen feet from the curb and tapers down it would not obstruct the view of the home in
a potential hazardous situation. Benny Plata asks where the six-foot fence would end and
Mr. Maxwell indicates that the taper would begin at the front corner of the home as
advised by the builder. A.W. Clem asks if he has looked into how the fence would affect
the value of the home and Mr. Maxwell believes that it would increase it because the
builder had mentioned that privacy fences are an investment. David Hamilton asks if the
allowable privacy fence in the rear and up to the side yard would be between on the side
of the neighbors he is wanting privacy from and Mr. Maxwell says that is correct.
No one else spoke in favor or opposition.
Public hearing was declared closed.
David Hamilton then asks the board if they would like to decide on the items individually
or collectively; the board decides that they will vote on the items collectively unless or
until an item needs to be specified and extracted to be considered individually.
A.W. Clem states to the board that he drove down the street of the proposed fence and
that if it were to be constructed that it would be a glaring change to the nice
neighborhood and that the existing fence should not be there in the first place. He also
states that the fence would not only affect the value of the property owner's home, but the
value of the surrounding homes as well no matter how tall or short it is.
Benny Plata then states that he assumes the neighboring home is a rent home and could
understand why Mr. Maxwell would want additional privacy from potential difficult
people constantly moving in and out. Mr. Clem then asks Mr. Maxwell if it is a rental
property; Mr. Maxwell is unsure, but he did say that people frequently move in and out.
David Hamilton then states that though he may understand the problem that he does not
believe that City should be providing a remedy to conflicting neighbors by allowing
people to build a fence in violation to multiple ordinances.
Motion was made by David Hamilton, seconded by Louise Hagood to deny all variances
of Section 11.5-3 (b) (la -d). Motion carried 3:2, with Benny Plata and Brady Fisher as
the dissenting votes.
6. Meeting adjourned at 12:3 Op. rn.
APPROVED THE 181hDAY OF JUNE, 2019.
°r
Chairm'�........
an