The Weatherford Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously (with one recusal) on May 14 to recommend approval of a conditional‑use permit (CUP) allowing a contractor office and outdoor storage for Bell Gems Inc., doing business as SC Bell Construction, at 2502 Old Brock Road.

Staff described the property as a 6.42‑acre site in the agricultural zoning district and recounted that the business had operated without full approvals since fall 2024. The commission previously amended the municipal code to allow consideration of contractor offices with outdoor storage on a case‑by‑case basis in the AG district; staff recommended approval of the CUP subject to five conditions designed to address neighbor concerns.

Caleb Kintner, director of Development and Neighborhood Services, summarized staff’s position and noted outreach to immediate neighbors. Kintner read a letter from an adjacent property owner, Martha Roman, who said she met with staff and would “stand with the Bells As long as the zoning doesn't change, all the requirements are met, and they keep their intentions of building the soundproof wall. I do not have any objections to the continued business.”

Applicant Stewart Bell, speaking for the family business, said SC Bell planned a six‑foot solid wood privacy fence on the east and south sides, a similar buffer to the north adjacent to Ms. Reyes, and a wire fence on the west where an adjacent property owner preferred to see activity. Bell told commissioners: “We're open, amenable. We wanna to continue operations in beautiful Weatherford and again we thank you for the opportunity.”

Neighbor Kyle Miller, who owns property immediately west of the Bells’ site, said he preferred a wire fence to retain visibility of the applicant’s yard and avoid wind blockage, recounting past problems on the property with potential dumping under previous ownership. Miller said, “I'd be happy with just a plain old wire fence so I could see what's going on over there.” The applicant responded that a wire fence on the west side was acceptable.

Commissioners asked staff to clarify whether a proposed “privacy fence” was intended to be soundproof. Kintner explained that the privacy fence shown on the applicant’s plan was a six‑foot wood fence and “it is not part of the condition, the privacy fence, because it already shows on their proposal to be a 6 foot tall privacy fence,” but noted the commission could add soundproofing as a condition if desired. Staff also noted the applicant planned a 50‑foot setback from the north fence for motorized equipment to reduce noise.

After questions and brief discussion the commission approved the CUP with the staff‑recommended conditions. The motion passed unanimously with one recusal.

Why this matters: the decision regularized a long‑running operation and placed clear, site‑specific conditions on outdoor storage and perimeter treatment to address noise, aesthetics and neighbor concerns.