[1. CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:09] GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO THE CITY OF ROBERT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551, THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED AND THE MIKE AND CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE, REASSESS, REALIGN, THE REGULAR SESSION AT ANY TIME PRIOR FOR ADJOURNMENT. THE PROCESS FOR PUBLIC INPUT IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON MAY COMPLETE THIS INPUT FORM ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE BY 3:30:00 P.M. THE DAY BEFORE THE MEETING ALL FORMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PART OF THE START OF THE MEETING. FOR IN PERSON COMMENTS, REGISTRATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PICKLE IT IS 7:00 WE DO HAVE A QUORUM WE WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER PICKLE NEXT ITEM IS CITIZENS INPUT AT THIS TIME. THREE MINUTE COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC, NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION DURING CITIZENS INPUT. WE HAVE ANY INPUT? LAST CHANCE. SEEING NONE, WE WILL GO AHEAD [3. Consent Agenda] AND CLOSE THE CITIZENS INPUT. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS CONSENT AGENDA. THE FOLLOWING MAY BE ACTED BY A ZONING COMMISSIONER OR CITIZEN MAY REQUEST ITEMS BE REMOVED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. CONSIDER APPROVING THE MINUTES FOR JULY 14TH 2026 REGULAR MEETING. CONSIDER AN ACTION TO APPROVE A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2801 MAIN STREET, THE SITE IS ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH A BASE ZONING OF M-2 GENERAL MANUFACTURING NC-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 1.4. AND CONSIDER THE ACTION TO APPROVE THE TRAILS AT COTTONWOOD CREEK PHASE 5 FINAL PLAT. THE APPROXIMATELY 41.878-ACRE SITE IS PART OF THE WILLIAM BLEVINS SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER T NUMBER 257 LOCATED IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT IN THE CITY OF GARLAND, ROCKWALL COUNTY, TEXAS. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO PULL AN ITEM? SEEING NONE, THEN WE WILL GO AHEAD, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MR. JOE HAS MADE A MOTION, PUSH YOUR RTS AND MAKE THAT LEGAL. >> I MOVED TO APPROVE AS READ. >> CONSENT AGENDA IS READ. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE WE WILL CALL THE VOTE. THAT PASSES 5-0. THEN AGAIN, MAYBE IT WILL BE 6 6-0. MR. BLADES? >> IT'S NOT WORKING. >> PUSH IT WITH YOUR FINGER. [LAUGHTER] BY A SHOW OF HANDS, ALL A FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL OPPOSED, THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, 6-0. [4A. Conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council regarding a Special Use Permit(SUP) to allow for an accessory structure with an area greater than 500 square feet on a property zoned Single Family SF-40. The approximately 1.24-acre property is located at 1925 Stallion Circle, also described as part of Lot 24, Block 2 of Dexham Estates No. 1, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.] THANK YOU VERY MUCH PICKLE MOVING ON TO ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION PUBLIC COMMENTS MAY BE MADE IN PERSON AND WILL BE LIMITED TO 3 MINUTES, REGISTRATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER. ITEM FOR. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH AN AREA GREATER THAN 500 SQUARE FEET ON A PROPERTY'S OLD SINGLE-FAMILY SF-40 APPROXIMATELY 1.2. MIKE FOR ACRE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1925 STALLION CIRCLE ALSO DESCRIBED AS PART OF LOT 24 BLOCK 2 OF DEXHAM ESTATES NUMBER ONE, IN THE CITY OF ROBERT DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS. >> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, LILYANA MOREJON, SENIOR PLANNER. THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS FOR THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE EXCEEDING 500 SQUARE FEET. THE STRUCTURE HAS ALREADY BEEN [00:05:03] CONSTRUCTED BECAUSE IT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM SIZED PERMIT BY RIGHT, AND SU P IS REQUIRED TO BRING PROPERTY INTO CONFORMANCE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF STALLION CIRCLE AND PALOMINO DRIVE SPECIFICALLY LOCATED AT 1925 STALLION CIRCLE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED SF-40. OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR A BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED FOR THE STRUCTURE, THE STRUCTURE WAS CONSTRUCTED FOLLOWING THAT PERMIT APPROVAL. FOLLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION, STAFF DETERMINED THE STRUCTURE EXCEEDED THE 500 SQUARE-FOOT THRESHOLD AND REQUIRED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS NOTIFIED AND SUBSEQUENT HE WAS REQUIRED TO APPLY FOR A SU P APPLICATION. THE CRUST IN FRONT OF YOU IS TO BRING THIS EXISTING STRUCTURE IN COMPLIANCE WITH NO ADDITIONAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED SITE. THIS 1.24 PLOT LIVES WITHIN THE DEXHAM ESTATES NUMBER ONE TRAM SUBDIVISION THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE IS ABOUT 2700 SQUARE FEET. THERE IS ALSO AN ATTACHED GARAGE AT APPROXIMATELY 667 SQUARE F FEET. THE EXISTING PERMITTED STRUCTURE AT 2200 SQUARE FEET AND THREE ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES THAT STAFF WAS ABLE TO OBSERVE WHEN WE WENT OUT TO THE SITE. WITH TICKETS APPROXIMATELY 200 SQUARE FEET. THERE AE NO PERMIT RECORDS FOR THESE THREE STRUCTURES LOCATED IN THE PROPERTY. THE APPROVED LOADING PLANS SHOW A 2200 SQUARE-FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BUILT OVER A CONCRETE FOUNDATION. THERE ARE STANDARDS THAT APPLY FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND THAT STOMACH AS YOU HEARD ME SAY BEFORE WE LOOK AT LOT COVERAGE, HEIGHT AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE IS A 35% OF THE REAR LOT COVERAGE BASED ON THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE, THE TOTAL REAR YARD COVERAGE REPRESENTS APPROXIMATELY 15% SO IT COMPLIES WITH THOSE STANDARDS. PER THE BUILDING PERMIT TO THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS 16 FEET TALL. COMPLYING WITH THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT, OVER 3 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY YARD AND ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT WEST OF THE PROPERTY LINE. THESE ARE CURRENT PHOTOS ON HOW THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOOKS FROM THE FRONT STALLION CIRCLE AS YOU CAN SEE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES NEARBY THE BUILDING IN QUESTION. THE CODE ALSO DEFINES ACCESSORY BUILDINGS OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AS A PERMANENT BUILDING OR STRUCTURE AFFIXED TO THE GROUND OF SUBORDINATES THAT PRIMARY STRUCTURE. USES INCIDENTAL TO THE DOMINANT USE OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR PREMISE. THE APPLICANT DID SITE USING THE STRUCTURE FOR PARTING OF PERSONAL VEHICLES. THIS FINDS THE STRUCTURE TO BE SUBORDINATE TO THAT RESIDENCE AND INCIDENTAL TO THE RESIDENTIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. STAFF SENT OUT NOTICES THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED TWO IN OPPOSITION AND WANTED FAVOR WITHIN OUR 200-FOOT NOTICES AND WITHIN OUR 500-FOOT COURTESY NOTICES RECEIVED TWO IN OPPOSITION AND A ZERO IN FAVOR. THE REQUESTED SUP WOULD ALLOW FOR THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, IF PROPERTY ZONED SF-40. ALTHOUGH THIS CAN STRUCTURE HAS ARTIE BEEN CONSTRUCTED IT COMPLIES WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS FOR LOT COVERAE, HEIGHT, AND A SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. BASED ON THESE FINDINGS, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED SPECIAL USE PERMITS. U.S. THE RECOMMENDING BODY MAY APPROVE, APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THE REQUEST. THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. THIS MIGHT BECOME A HARD-WON. YOU SAY A PERMIT WAS PULLED TO BUILD THIS STRUCTURE? >> YES. >> HOW DID WE MISS A 2,200 SQUARE-FOOT STRUCTURE WHEN ANYTHING OVER 500 SQUARE FEET REQUIRES THE SUP? IF IT WAS 510 I COULD SEE WE MIGHT'VE OVERLOOKED IT. [00:10:10] >> WHAT I CAN SAY IS UPON REVIEW, IT WAS REALIZED THAT THE PERMIT WAS PULLED, REVIEWED, AND APPROVED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SUP TO THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. ERASE A QUESTION QUESTION ON HOW DID THAT HAPPEN -- UNFORTUNATELY IT WAS A STAFF ERROR AND WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY. >> THE CHAIR: I APPRECIATE THAT. TO REITERATE THE FACT THE PERMIT WAS PULLED, ALL INSPECTIONS WERE PERFORMED, PLANS REVIEWED AND EVERYTHING WAS SATISFACTORY? THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> MINUS ALMOST EXACTLY WHAT THE CHAIRMAN ASKED, BUT I WOULD LIKE ONE OTHER BIT OF CLARITY. WAS THERE ANY -- IN YOUR FINDING OUT OR INVESTIGATION, IF THEY ASKED WHY IT WAS MISSED COMING FORWARD FOR A SUP, WAS THERE ANYBODY WHO PRESENTED -- I'M TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PUT THIS -- ANY PROMISES OR ANY -- ANYTHING THAT WAS STATED TO THE APPLICANT THAT HE DID NOT NEED ON SUP -- WAS THERE ANY RED FLAGS THAT CAME UP? >> THE CHAIR: WAS ANYBODY MISLED, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING SAYING? >> YEAH. >> I CANNOT SPEAK TO WHAT CONVERSATIONS TRANSPIRED BETWEEN PRIOR LEADERSHIP IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WITH THE APPLICANT. OBVIOUSLY THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED AFTER COORDINATING AND SPEAKING WITH THE STAFF TO DETERMINE WHAT THE PROCEDURE IS. I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I DO NOT HAVE THAT ANSWER. I DON'T HAVE THAT HISTORICAL REFERENCE. >> THE REASON WHY I ASK IS BECAUSE WE'VE HAD ONE OTHER SINCE I WAS ON VOA AND P AND Z COLUMN THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE SOME THINGS DONE. IT'S BECOME A SHOOTING WAR BETWEEN NEIGHBORS, THAT'S THE REASON WHY I ASKED. >> I UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THE QUESTION IF I HAD THAT INFORMATION I WOULD DEFINITELY DIVULGE IT. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT AND I'M SURE THEY WILL BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN HOW THEY GOT TO THE POINT THEY GOT TO TWO I DO WANT TO ITERATE THE STAFF BEFORE YOU IS FOLLOWING THE RULES AND REGULATIONS AS IDENTIFIED AND ARTICULATED IN THE RELATIVE DEVELOPMENT CODE. >> THE CHAIR: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, FOR STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? WITH THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO, HE'S JUST HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >> THE CHAIR: DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO? OKAY, THAT'S FINE. SO HE DOES WANT TO TALK -- EXCELLENT. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> GREG CRAIG, PLEASE? >> MY NAME IS GREGORY CRAIG I LIVE AT 1914 STALLION CIRCLE. DON'T ALREADY? >> THE CHAIR: I THINK YOUR TIMES UP. [LAUGHTER] >> I WANT TO SPEAK A LITTLE LONGER THAN 3 MINUTES, MY WIFE WANT TO SPEAK, SHE'S NOT HERE. IF THAT'S OKAY, I WILL RUN JUST A LITTLE -- GO. >> THE CHAIR: CAN YOU RESET THE CLOCK FOR 5 MINUTES? >> I LIVE ON THE CORNER HOUSE OF STALLION CIRCLE. I WANT TO FIRST THANK THE MAYOR, I WANT TO THANK MANAL, THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER AND THE [00:15:05] FOLKS AT THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I CAN RELATE TO BEING ON YOUR SIDE OF THIS PODIUM. I WAS ONCE ON P&Z, I'M ALSO A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, I HAVE 46 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. I'M USED TO DEALING WITH ORDINANCES AND DO SOME THINGS LIKE THIS. HOW LOCAL ORDINANCE DETERMINE HOW THINGS GET BUILT. BRIEF HISTORY ABOUT DEXHAM ESTATES. OUR NEIGHBOR HAS BEEN UNDER INTENSE PRESSURE FROM DEVELOPERS OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES SINCE 1991 MY FAMILY MOVED HERE. THAT'S 36 YEARS OF DEALING WITH STUFF OF PEOPLE TRYING TO DO THINGS. I'LL MENTION A FEW. OF THE CITY WANTED TO BUILD A SEWER MONITOR BACK IN THE 90S. DART WANTED TO BUILD THE RIGHT OF WAY AND TEAR OUT ALL THE TREES IN OUR DEVELOPMENT. THERE WAS A SUBDIVISION ACROSS THE D DEXHAM ROAD. THERE WAS A MASSIVE THREE-STORY WAREHOUSE THAT WAS GOOD TO BE BUILT ALONG DEXHAM ROAD TO THE LAST ONE WAS A RENTAL DEVELOPER THAT WANTED TO PUT SOUTH ON DEXHAM ROAD HE WANTED TO ADD TWICE AS MANY RENTAL HOMES ON LESS PROPERTY THAN IS AT DEXHAM ESTATES. THE REASON I MENTION THIS IS BECAUSE WE FOUGHT THEM. WE CAME TO COUNSEL, WE CAME TO P&Z AS A GROUP, AND WE WERE ABLE TO KEEP THEM FROM AFFECTING OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AND OUR HOME VALUES BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO. YOUR HOME VALUES? YOUR HOME AS THEIR MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU OWN, RIGHT? NOW WE HAVE TO FIGHT INTERNALLY WITH ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS BECAUSE HE'S DECIDED TO ERECT A MASSIVE BARN. I APPRECIATE THE FACT YOU HAVE SOME PICTURES BUT HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE GONE OUT THERE AND LOOKED AT THAT BARN? ITS MASSIVE. 2200 SQUARE FEET. YOU REALIZE OUR SUBDIVISION, WE HAVE SF-40, IT'S A MINIMUM OF 2400 SQUARE FEET IT'S ONLY 200 SQUARE FEET LESS THAN ONE OF OUR HOUSES. IF YOU APPROVE THIS RED BARN, THIS ACCESSORY BUILDING WHICH IS ALREADY ERECTED ON HIS PROPERTY, YOU OPEN A PANDORA'S BOX. BECAUSE YOU ARE SETTING A PRECEDENT -- ALL HOMEOWNERS WILL ASK IF THEY CAN BUILD IT, WHY -- OR ANY NEIGHBORHOOD IN RO ROWLETT -- BUILDING A LARGE METAL BUILDING IN A NICE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LIKE DEXHAM ESTATES' GO TO LOWER PROPERTY VALUES, PERIOD PICKLE MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS HAVE LIVED THERE AND PAY PROPERTY TAXES FOR OVER THREE DECADES. BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY WANT TO RETIRE? WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY WANT TO SELL THEIR HOUSE? BY APPROVING THIS BARN YOU HAVE EFFECTIVELY LOWERED THE HOME VALUES OF EVERYBODY AT DEXHAM ESTATES. AND YOU'VE OPENED UP THE CITY FOR LEGAL ACTION. THE METAL BARN BELONGS ON A FARM AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING I CAN CALL IT, A METAL BARN. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS GO OUT THERE AND LOOK AT IT. I'VE SENT PICTURES, RIGHT? IT'S NOT ATTRACTIVE, IT'S RED, IT'S UGLY, IT'S BIG, IT'S METAL. THIS METAL BARN BELONGS OUT IN THE COUNTRY. IT BELONGS ON A FARM. AT ONE OF THE HOMEOWNERS MEETINGS MY NEIGHBOR DISCOVERED OUR COVENANTS WHERE WE LIVE ARE NOT GOING TO BE RENEWED. SO HE THOUGHT HE WOULD HAVE THE FREEDOM TO BUILD WHAT HE WANTED. I DON'T BELIEVE HE WAS IGNORANT OF CITY REQUIREMENTS, HE HAS LIVED HERE LONGER THAN I HAVE. AND HE ONCE HAD A COMMERCIAL AUTO LUBE STORE IN ROWLETT OFF OF ROWLETT ROAD. AFTER SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR CITY RECORDS I REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING TWO DOCUMENTS FOR THE CITY THE REMODEL PERMIT CLEARLY STATES A SUP IS REQUIRED IT CLEARLY STATES ON THE REMODEL PERMITS. I DON'T KNOW HOW A MISTAKE COULD BE MADE IT CLEARLY STATES THAT. SECONDLY THE BUILDING PERMIT STATES IT'S SUBJECT TO THE CITY OF ROWLETT REQUIREMENTS. [00:20:01] HE BUILT THIS METAL BARN BEFORE IT WAS APPROVED, BEFORE THIS REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING. THE MASSIVE METAL BARN AS YOU'VE ALREADY SAID IS 2200 SQUARE FEET, 16 FEET TALL, 44-FOOT WIDE, 50-FOOT LONG, IT COST THEM OVER 32,000 TO BUILD IT. LIKE I SAID WE ARE ZONED SF-40. HE'S BUILT A BARN ALMOST AS BIG AS OUR HOUSES. HE ALREADY HAS MULTIPLE STORAGE BUILDINGS ON HIS LOT AND I THINK IT'S MORE THAN FOUR, I THINK IT'S MORE LIKE SIX. YOU CAN GO OUT THERE AND LOOK. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO MENTION IS A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, THOSE ARE CANOPY TREES THAT ARE DECIDUOUS. THEY ARE GOING TO DROP THEIR LEAVES AND I WISH I WOULD'VE TAKEN A PICTURE WHEN HE FIRST BUILT IT -- I SENT YOU O ONE OFT UNDER CONSTRUCTION BUT WHEN HE FIRST BUILT IT I WISH I WOULD'VE TAKEN A PICTURE IN THE WINTER. EVERYBODY IS GOING TO SEE IT. EVERYBODY'S WAY TO SEE IT, THERE'S NOT ANY LEAVES AROUND THE TREES TO BLOCK IT. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF THIS HAPPENED TO YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBORS? IT DOES NOT TAKE A BRAIN SURGEON TO UNDERSTAND WHY A METAL BUILDING DOESN'T BELONG HERE. WE HAVE ALWAYS RELIED ON THE CITY TO HELP US -- >> THE CHAIR: ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? AT THIS TIME WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION PREFERABLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE FOR THE PURPOSES OF LEGAL COUNSEL. DO THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? IF YOU WOULD COME FORWARD THEN, PLEASE. IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RECORD. MR. POLLARD TO. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US, DID YOU GO PERSONALLY DOWN AND GET THE BUILDING PERMIT. SPEAK OF THE CONTACT I MADE WAS DEREK CALLED BY EMAIL, HE IMMEDIATELY PASSED IT ON TO DEIDRA -- I FORGET HER LAST NAME. I HAVE IT IN HERE SOMEWHERE. FROM THERE I WOULD ASK FOR HELP. MIGHT LOOK AT THE TIME PERIOD ON THIS, THIS STARTED LAST SUMMER. THIS WAS A VERY DIFFICULT TASK. I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WOULD BE THAT DIFFICULT. DEREK MOVED IT TO DEIDRA, DEIDRA TURNED IT OVER TO MICHAEL KEENE, MICHAEL KEENE CALLED ME AND DEALT WITH IT THEIR OWN AFTER. EACH TIME I ASKED MICHAEL KEENE WHAT DO I DO NEXT -- I'M NOT SURE THEY UNDERSTOOD TO. >> THE CHAIR: LET ME GO BACK FOR A SECOND BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE WE ARE UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER. WHEN YOU GOT THE BUILDING PERMIT, TO THE CONTRACTOR GO PULL IT FOR YOU OR DID YOU PERSONALLY GO DOWN AND PURCHASE. >> I DID. >> THE CHAIR: AT THE TIME THAT YOU WENT IN TO GET THE BUILDING PERMIT, DID AT ANY TIME SOMEBODY TELLS YOU YOU NEEDED TO HAVE A SUP. >> NO. MY FIRST CONTACT WAS DEREK HALL AND THAT WAS ONLY BY EMAIL, I NEVER PHYSICALLY SAW HIM OR SPOKE WITH HIM. HE PASSED IT TO DEIDRA, DEIDRA PASSED IT TO MICHAEL AND FROM THERE IT WAS WHOEVER SHOWED UP. IN YOUR EARLIER QUESTION, THERE WERE NO PROMISES MADE TO. I WAS BEGGING JUST TO GET IT DONE. I HATE TO POINT OUT SOME INCOMPETENCE BUT THESE LADIES WERE PART OF IT. >> THE CHAIR: I'M SURE THEY APPRECIATE THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? >> I WOULD LIKE TO THROW OUT ONE OTHER THING. DEXHAM ESTATES WAS STARTED BY A DEVELOPER AND HIS POINT IN [00:25:04] BUILDING THAT WAS TO MAKE IT A HORSE COMMUNITY. THE STREETS ARE NAMED, DEXHAM ESTATES IS THE MAIN ONE, STALLION CIRCLE, CLYDESDALE, AND PALOMINO. WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THE DEED RESTRICTIONS IT SAYS THE LARGER LOTS CAN HAVE HORSES. HOW CAN YOU HAVE A HORSE THAT SOMEBODY PUT HORSE IN? I DON'T PLAN ON HAVING A HORSE, AND FACT THAT WAS ONE OF MICHAEL KEENE'S QUESTIONS TO ME. WHAT THE AREA WAS DESIGNED FOR WAS THE PURPOSE OF MUSIC IT FOR. I'M PROBABLY THE OLDEST TENANT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, 38 YEARS, 48 YEARS IN ROWLETT. I HAVE NO INTENTION ON RUINING MY PROPERTY VALUES OR ANYONE ELSE'S. WHEN DART CAME THROUGH, SAME ISSUE CAME UP. IT'S GOING TO RUIN THE PROPERTY VALUES. ARE PROPERTY VALUES HAVE CONTINUED TO CLIMB. WHEN THE CITY BUILT THE PARK BEHIND US, WE HAD PEOPLE LEAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO MAKE OUR PROPERTY VALUES GO DOWN. I DISAGREED, I STATE, PROPERTY VALUES HAVE GONE UP. I CAN'T HELP THE COLOR MAYBE IF GREG HAD DISCUSSED IT WITH ME WE COULD PICK A DIFFERENT COLOR, I DON'T KNOW. I WALKED IN THIS TRUSTING THE PLANNING AND ZONING A DID EVERYTHING THEY ASKED ME TO DO. THERE WAS NO BACKSIDE BACKROOM CONVERSATIONS, LIKE I SAID IT WAS DIFFICULT TO GET ANYTHING OUT OF THEM. DURING THAT TIME, PEOPLE WERE QUITTING, PEOPLE WERE LEAVING -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON. IF YOU LOOK, I DIDN'T GET IT APPROVED FINALLY AND I HAVE DOCUMENTATION FROM APPROVAL FROM JANUARY 20TH AND IT STARTE IN SEPTEMBER OF 2025. I COULD ABOUT THE BUILDING UP IN TWO MONTHS. TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO AND GET THEIR APPROVAL. >> THE CHAIR: YES, SIR, THANK YOU. ONCE AGAIN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. POLLARD? >> I MOVE FOR THE PURPOSES OF MOVING THIS TO A DISCUSSION TO APPROVE THE SUP AS THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO. >> THE CHAIR: WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE, WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. JOBE. DISCUSSION. MR. JOBE. >> SO WHAT HAPPENS -- I KNOW THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION, WHAT HAPPENS IF IT'S NOT APPROVED, DOES THAT MEAN HE TEARS THE BUILDING DOWN? >> THE CHAIR: YUP. >> TO ME BASED ON WHAT WE ARE SEEING HERE IS JUST AN UNFORTUNATELY A FAILURE, HE DID EVERY THING BY THE BOOK, HE ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS, WHAT DO I NEED TO DO, WHAT DO I NEED TO DO, UNFORTUNATELY ON THE CITY END, WE FAILED ON WHAT WAS REQUIRED FOR HIM -- THAT'S HOW I'M LOOKING AT HERE. IT'S A VERY BAD SITUATION ON BOTH ENDS, I CAN SEE IT, I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS FROM BOTH INDIVIDUALS AND I CAN UNDERSTAND TOTALLY FOR EACH INDIVIDUALS COMING FROM. BUT I HAVE A HARD TIME NOT APPROVING IT FOR THE FACT THAT WE MESSED UP ON THE CITY END TO APPROVE THE PERMIT AND ALLOW IT TO GET TO THE POINT ATTACHED. THAT'S MY THOUGHT. >> THE CHAIR: THANK YOU. MR. POLLARD. >> IN MANY AREAS OF THIS CITY WE HAVE SF-40, SF-20 LOTS, PROVISION OF THE BUILDING CODE, HAS BEEN FOR MANY YEARS THAT ANYTHING OVER 500 SQUARE FEET YOU GET A SUP BUT THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE CERTAIN SIZE OR LARGER LOT FOR ME TO PUT A 2200 SQUARE-FOOT FACILITY IN ADDITION TO MY HOUSE ON A 10,000 SQUARE-FOOT LOT WOULDN'T FLY. BUT IT IS PERMISSIBLE WITH A SUP, 20,040,000 SQUARE-FOOT LOT. [00:30:04] I CAN GO THROUGH STREETS AFTER STREETS, WE'VE APPROVED THEM. TELLER ROAD FACILITIES AND OTHER PLACES AND THIS IS AN ACRE LOT. IF I LIVED IN DEXHAM ESTATES I'M NOT SURE I WOULD LIKE THE RED EVEN THOUGH THAT'S MY FAVORITE COLOR, I'M NOT SURE WHAT I WOULD HAVE PAINTED IT, BUT NEVERTHELESS, THE GUIDE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT WE TYPICALLY APPROVE IT IN OTHER PLACES IN THIS CITY FOR 40,000 SQUARE-FOOT LOT. IT'S NOT TALLER THAN HIS HOUSE, IT'S SMALLER THAN HIS HOUSE. IT'S SETBACK RULES ARE COMPLIED WITH, SO I DON'T SEE ANY REASON THAT HE CAN'T HAVE A FACILITY. WE JUST APPROVED ONE ON TELLER ROAD AND ITS NOT THE ONLY ONE, THERE'S A BUNCH THAT HAVE GOT BRNES, IF YOU WILL. THERE ON 1 ACRE LOTS. THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. >> HEAT IS PULLED THE PERMIT IS TOLD HE DID NOT NEED A SUP -- BEFORE IT WAS BUILT, HE DIDN'T HAVE TO COME TO P&Z? >> THE CHAIR: THE TRUE PROCESS FOR THIS WOULD'VE BEEN HAD HE SUBMITTED HIS PERMIT, THEY SHOULD'VE PICKED UP ON THE FACT THAT IT'S GREATER THAN 500 SQUARE FEET IN ADDITION TO SUBMITTING THIS PERMIT YOU NEED TO GET A SUP BEFORE WE APPROVE THE PERMIT. SO HE WOULD'VE COME. >> HE DIDN'T HAVE TO COME HERE BECAUSE IT WAS IN ISSUE. >> THE CHAIR: DIDN'T PROVIDE HIM THAT INFORMATION. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THE STAFF KIND OF DROPPED THE BALL ON THAT BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE. HAD HE BEEN TOLD HE WOULD'VE COME IN FRONT OF US BEFORE HE POURED IN A CONCRETE OR SET THE FOUNDATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT AND WE COULD'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION WE COULD'VE LISTEN TO THE NEIGHBORS AND PUTS, COULD'VE MADE A DECISION WHICH TO BE HONEST WITH YOU BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA THAT THE CITY HAS ESTABLISHED, WE ARE UNABLE TO DICTATE MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION. ACCORDING TO STATE LAW, CORRECT? MY LAWYER BACKS ME UP ON THAT ONE AND THAT CHANGED TWO YEARS AGO, TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO? FIVE YEARS AGO? OKAY, TIME FLIES. WE ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO DICTATE TO THE MATERIAL CONSTRUCTION. IT BEATS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. WE WOULD HAVE ENDED UP MORE THAN LIKELY APPROVING IT. OR RECOMMENDING ITS APPROVAL. RIGHT NOW AGAIN IT STILL MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND WE ARE REALLY JUST TRYING TO BACKFILL THE PROCESS BY NOW SUBMITTING A SUP AND THERE'S REALLY NOTHING THAT I SEE THAT WOULD TELL ME THAT I CAN'T OR THAT I SHOULD DISAPPROVE THIS. THAT'S WHY I HAVE TO LOOK AT IT. MR. POLLARD. >> LET ME SAY THIS IN THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN TELL ME I CAN'T SAY THAT. [LAUGHTER] AND HOPEFULLY THINGS ARE KOSHER HERE. THE POINT IS THAT I TOO AS ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS MENTIONED, I WOULD'VE BEEN EXTREMELY UPSET HAD THE APPLICANT DISREGARDED BEING TOLD YOU NEED A SUP AND HE JUST FLAGRANTLY WENT OUT AND BUILD IT AND SAID I'LL BUILD IT AND ASK FORGIVENESS LATER, PROBABLY WOULD NOT SQUARE WITH THIS. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED. WE CAN'T PENALIZE THE GUY FOR THE CITY DROPPING THE BALL AND NOT SAYING YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A SUP BUT EVERYTHING ELSE MEETS THE BUILDING CRITERIA THAT WE'VE APPROVED MANY TIMES. >> THE CHAIR: I THINK ANOTHER THING WOULD'VE BEEN HAD HE NOT [00:35:05] PULLED A PERMIT AT ALL, IT DEFINITELY WOULD'VE BEEN RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL ON MY PART AT LEAST. >> WHICH HE HAS DONE ON THREE OTHER LOCATIONS. >> THE CHAIR: THERE UNDER 200 SQUARE FEET. >> THE CITY SAID THERE WAS NO RECORDS OF ANY PERMITS. >> THE CHAIR: YOU DON'T NEED ONE. >> I THINK ONE OF THE ODDITIES OF THIS SITUATION IS THAT LOOKING AT THE PLAT HE HAS A LARGE LOT THAT'S LARGER THAN ALL THE OTHER LOTS IN THE AREA ESPECIALLY THE NEIGHBORS ON STALLION CIRCLE IT SEEMS LIKE. IT'S NOT A SITUATION WHERE EVERY HOUSE, EVERY LOT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS AN ACRE PLUS. I'M ALSO IN ACCORDANCE WITH EVERYONE ELSE SAYING THAT IT MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA EXCEPT FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE CITY DIDN'T TELL HIM HE NEEDED A SUP THAT IT PROBABLY WOULD'VE BEEN APPROVED. IN MY SHORT. PERIOD HERE I THINK WE'VE APPROVED TWO OR THREE STRUCTURES GREATER THAN 500 500 FEET. >> THE CHAIR: ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SEEING NONE, THEN WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE SUP AS PRESENTED TO. SECOND? WE'LL CALLED THE VOTE. THAT PASSES * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.