06/01/2021 MinutesSPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
CITY OF PARIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CITY OF PARIS - CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
PARIS TEXAS
TUESDAY JUNE 1 2021
12:00 O'CLOCK P.M.
1. The Board of Adjustment meeting was called to order by Ruth Ann Alsobrook at 12:02 p.m.
The following members were present: Ruth Ann Alsobrook, Jerry Haning, William
Sanders and Larry Walker.
Also present were Stephanie Harris and concerned citizens.
2. Approval of minutes from previous meeting. (May 4, 2021)
Motion was made by William Sanders, seconded by Larry Walker to approve minutes for the May
0', 2021 meeting. Motion carried 4:0.
3. Public hearing to consider and take action on the petition of Jerry Thompson, on Lot 7,
City Block 234, being located at 1601 W Henderson Street.
The petition requested variances of Section 4.11.003 (b)(1)(a)(c) of the Fence Ordinance which
provides as follows:
(b) Fence height.
(1) Front vard 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.
The applicant is proposing to install a front yard fence at 1601 W Henderson. 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 applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 48" chain-link front yard
fence at 1601 W Henderson.
Public hearing was declared open.
Stephanie Harris, City Attorney, presented the case, staff recommendations and findings to the
Board on behalf of Andrew Mack. Stephanie adds supporting information that there are several
other chain-link fences in the neighborhood and the City is re-evaluating the fencing ordinance
regulations so the front yard fence requirements will potentiallybe amended in the future and could
not require variances at all. In conclusion, Stephanie states that the City recommend approval of
this variance.
RuthAnn Alsobrook, Chairperson, asked where the right-of-way began to which Stephanie replied
she was not sure where the right -of way -began, but RuthAnn stated that after driving by and
observing she believed that the existing fence was off of the road a sufficient distance. Lastly,
Stephanie clarifies that though there is no definitive right-of-way issue the City is available to
assist the applicant in verifying that or any other questions they may have.
Jerry Thompson, property owner, states that he is wanting to put this fence up to prevent people
from cutting across the lot and parking there since it is located on a corner and has a lot of traffic
in his area.
No one else spoke in favor or opposition.
Public hearing was declared closed.
William Sanders, board member, asks why there is an ordinance against front yard fences to begin
with. Stephanie Harris responds to her recollection, even though she was not here during the time
the ordinance was put in place, there was a committee of people who worked on recommendations
to the staff to present to the council. She believes that there were no safety concerns, but it was
more a matter of aesthetics.
Motion was made by Jerry Haning, seconded by Larry Walker to approve the variance to Section
4.11.003 (b)(1)(a)(c) of the Fence Ordinance to allow a 48" chain-link fence in the front yard based
upon the following staff recommended conditions and findings of fact. Motion carried 4:0.
Staff Recommended Conditions:
1. The new chain link fence may be constructed to height not exceed 4 ft. in height in the front
yard.
2. The new chain link fence shall not be constructed in the street ROW.
3. The new chain link fence shall not be constructed in the street intersection visibility triangle.
4. The existing fence constructed in the ROW until such time as the fence is removed by the
land owner or the city for any reason and at any time in the future. Upon removal, it shall not
be replaced or reconstructed in the street ROW.
5. There shall be no increase or intensification of the non -conforming fence conditions allowed.
Staff Recommended Find in s of Fact
1. Unique circumstances do exist on the property and surrounding properties that make
application of specific requirements in this article unduly burdensome on the applicant.
2. The proposed construction of this fence will be in keeping with the appearance and condition
of the surrounding neighboring properties and will not adversely impact the character of the
neighborhood.
3. The variance will not have any anticipated adverse impact on current or future development,
provided the fence is not constructed in the city street ROW.
4. The variance is in keeping with the spirit of these regulations and will have a minimal impact,
if any, on the surrounding land uses.
5. There are proposed revisions under consideration for the fence regulations which may, once
approved, afford a different standard for front yard fences on residentially zoned properties
outside of the historic district in the city.
6. The variance will have no adverse impact on the public health, safety, and general welfare
provided the fence is not obstructing visibility at the intersection and is constructed outside of
the street ROW.
7. No increase or intensification of the non -conforming fence conditions will be allowed in the
street ROW and therefore no further negative impacts upon the public street will occur with
approval of the variance.
8. A financial hardship is not a consideration in relationship to this request for approval of and
the granting of a variance.
4. Public hearing to consider and take action on the petition of Derrick Hill, on Lot 6, Block
B, of the Suburban Estates, being located at 1030 Mockingbird Lane.
The applicant requests a variance of Section 9-401 Area Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance which
provides as follows:
9-401 (1) Schedule maximum building coverage -Residential districts
Maximum percent of lot area which may be covered by a building. A-15%
The applicant is proposing to construct a 978SF shop at 1030 Mockingbird Lane exceeding the allotted
15% building coverage by 5.1%. Specific Variance of 5.1% or 758.3SF is requested.
Public hearing was declared open.
Stephanie Harris, City Attorney, presented the case, staff recommendations and findings to the
Board on behalf of Andrew Mack. According to Andrew it would be more appropriate that this
agriculturally zoned neighborhood be zoned and considered as a single-family zoning which would
give this property a 35% coverage allotment therefore waiving the requirement for a variance.
Stephanie Harris makes note of one letter submitted in opposition by James Dao, of 1020
Mockingbird Ln, but there was no explanation as to why he was opposed.
Derrick and Dana Hill, property owners, are simply wanting to build an accessory building like a
few of their neighbors for storage and to have a place to work on their hobby car.
William Sanders, board member, confirmed that there is no intention to conduct business out of
this shop building.
No one else spoke in favor or opposition.
Public hearing was declared closed.
Motion was made by Larry Walker, seconded by Jerry Haning to approve the variance to City of
Paris Zoning Ordinance, Section 9-401 of the Area Regulations to allow up to 35% lot coverage
with the proposed and all future building improvements based upon the following staff
recommended conditions and findings of fact. Motion carried 4:0.
Staff Recommended Conditions:
1. The minimum required building setbacks to the property line for the new structure shall be
verified in the field based upon the actual property line from survey pins located on the lot
corners prior to commencing any building construction.
2. The lot coverage with the proposed & all future building improvements shall not exceed
35%.
Staff Recommended Findings of Fact
1. The literal compliance with Sections 9-400 & 9-401 of the Zoning Ordinance would cause
unnecessary hardship given the fact that this is an existing lot of record in an approved
subdivision that, in its entirety, is incorrectly zoned and the request for a new accessory
structure cannot be constructed without a variance.
2. The granting of the variance will not violate the spirit or the intent of the SF -2 District of the
Zoning Ordinance for this property for which it should be zoned. Under the correct zoning of
SF -2, a variance would not be required.
3. The Planning & Zoning Commission should conduct additional review of this subdivision
development and consider initiating a rezoning action for the entire subdivision to reduce the
burden on land owners in the development from having to obtain variances according to the
Agriculture Zoning District requirements.
4. The condition or feature which creates the need for the variance did not result from the property
owner's own actions.
5. The variance by the applicant is not solely for personal convenience, financial hardship, or
other reasons unrelated to the property.
6. The proposed use of a new detached building is a permitted accessory use in the Agriculture
Zoning District.
5. Adjournment.
APPROVED THE 7'H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021.
'J