* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [Board of Adjustments: Panel A on September 16, 2025.] [00:00:04] GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. MY NAME IS DAVID NEWMAN AND I'M HONORED TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE FULL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THIS PANEL. A UH, OF THE BOARD TODAY IS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2025. UH, THE TIME IS 1:00 PM I HEREBY CALL A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL EIGHT TO ORDER, UH, FOR BOTH IN-PERSON AND HYBRID VIDEO CONFERENCE. A QUORUM, WHICH IS A MINIMUM FOUR OR FIVE OF OUR PANEL MEMBERS IS PRESENT AND THEREFORE WE CAN PROCEED WITH OUR MEETING. FIRST, ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND OUR OFFICERS. AGAIN, MY NAME IS DAVID NEWMAN AND I'M CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. UH, TO MY IMMEDIATE LEFT IS KATHLEEN DAVIS, RACHEL HAYDEN, JANE NER, AND MICHAEL HVI. TO MY IMMEDIATE RIGHT IS THERESA CARLISLE, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, DR. KAMIKA MILLER HOSKINS, BOARD ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF PLANNER, AND MARY WILLIAMS, OUR BOARD SECRETARY AND MEETING MODERATOR. I WANNA MENTION, UH, FROM THE, FROM THE GET GO THAT WE'RE GLAD THAT EVERYONE'S HERE IN PERSON AND THOSE THAT ARE WATCHING ONLINE. UH, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE, OF THE BOARD. UH, WE WELCOME FEEDBACK AS APPROPRIATE AS LONG AS IT'S DONE PROFESSIONALLY AND DONE WITHIN THE DECORUM OF WHAT WE ALL EXPECT IN CITY GOVERNANCE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TODAY ON ONE OF THE CASES THAT ARE BEFORE US, YOU NEED TO HAVE REGISTERED ONLINE IN ADVANCE. AND JUST TO SHOW YOU, THIS WAS THE 9:00 AM LISTING OF SPEAKERS FOR TODAY, OR YOU NEED TO COME AND FILL OUT A BLUE SHEET OF PAPER UPFRONT INDICATING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK. NOW, TODAY'S AGENDA IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT HAS VARIANCE IN SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL. THE VARIANCE IN SPECIAL SEC EXCEPTIONS ALLOW FOR COMMENT DURING A HEARING. THE APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION DOES NOT ALLOW FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY DURING THE HEARING. SO THE TIME FOR YOU TO MAKE A COMMENT IF YOU'D LIKE TO IS DURING OUR PUBLIC TESTIMONY, WHICH WE WILL MOVE TO HERE SHORTLY. BEFORE WE BEGIN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE GIVE OUR TIME FREELY AND RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR THAT TIME. WE OPERATE UNDER OUR CITY COUNCIL, APPROVE RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH ARE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE CONSISTENT WITH THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE. NO ACTION OR DECISION ON A CASE SETS A PRECEDENT. EACH CASE IS DECIDED UPON ITS OWN MERITS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. THE APPLICANT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO ESTABLISH THE NECESSARY FACTS TO WARRANT FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD. WE'VE BEEN FULLY BRIEFED BY THE STAFF PRIOR TO THIS HEARING AND HAVE ALSO REVIEWED A DETAILED PUBLIC DOCUMENT WHO EXPLAINS THE CASE, WHICH WAS POSTED ON OUR CITY OF DALLAS WEBSITE SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO TODAY. ANY EVIDENCE YOU WISH TO SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ANY CASE THAT WE WILL HEAR TODAY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO OUR BOARD SECRETARY WHEN THE CASE IS CALLED. THIS EVIDENCE MUST BE RETAINED IN THE BOARD'S OFFICE AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE CASE APPROVAL OF VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR REVERSAL OF A BUILDING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL REQUIRES 75% BY STATE LAW OR FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF THE FIVE OF US. SO FOUR OF THE FIVE HAVE TO VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO APPROVE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR TO REVERSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DECISION. ALL OTHER MOTIONS REQUIRE JUST A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE THAT IS STATE LAW AND CODIFIED IN THE CITY. CODE. LETTERS OF TODAY'S BOARD'S ACTIONS WILL BE MAILED TO THE APPLICANT, UH, BY OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR SHORTLY AFTER TODAY'S HEARING, TYPICALLY NO LATER THAN TWO DAYS AND WILL BECOME PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR EACH CASE. ALL DECISIONS MADE BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ARE CONSIDERED FINAL, UNLESS APPEALED WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE DECISION LETTER AND THE APPEALS FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GO TO THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH THEN GO TO THE APPEALS COURT, WHICH THEN COULD GO TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT. THAT RARELY HAPPENS, BUT THAT'S THE PATH DECISIONS THIS BOARD MAKES. DOES NOT GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. APPEALS OF THESE, THIS BOARD BY STATUTE GO TO A DISTRICT COURT AND OR THEN APPEALS COURT AND OR THEN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT. ANYONE DESIRING TO SPEAK TODAY MUST REGISTER IN ADVANCE. I MENTIONED THIS. EACH REGISTERED SPEAKER WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR A MATTER ON OUR AGENDA. AND OUR NORMAL SPEAKING TIME IS THREE MINUTES. I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA ALLOW FOR TWO MINUTES TODAY. AT THE LAST MEETING I SAID THAT WE WERE POSTPONING IT BASED ON THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY ASKING FOR A POSTPONEMENT. AND I WOULD DO ONE, I'M GONNA BE TWO MINUTES, BUT WE'RE GONNA BE ROUGH ON, WE'RE GONNA BE VERY DEFINED ON TWO MINUTES. SO YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES TO [00:05:01] ADDRESS THIS AND THEN YOU WILL BE CUT OFF. WE DON'T WANNA BE RUDE. WE HAD HOW MANY SPEAKERS REGISTERED? MS. BOARD SECRETARY? 70. 70. SO THAT'S 140 MINUTES OF TESTIMONY THAT WE WELCOME THAT YOU AS TAXPAYERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS WELCOME, BUT WE NEED TO DO IT EXPEDITIOUSLY. SO TWO MINUTES FOR PUBLIC SPEAKING. A SPEAKER MAY ALSO SPEAK WHEN A SPECIFIC CASE IS CALLED. THAT IS FOR A VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION CASE. AND IN THAT SCENARIO IT'S FIVE MINUTES. ALL REGISTERED ONLINE SPEAKERS MUST BE PRESENT ON THE VIDEO TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. NO TELECON SCENE WILL BE ALLOWED VIA WEBEX. ALL COMMENTS ARE REDIRECTED TO MYSELF AS THE PRESIDING OFFICER WHO MAY MODIFY SPEAKING TIMES AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ORDER, MAINTAIN ORDER. WE'RE ALL ADULTS, LET'S MAKE SURE WE MAINTAIN ORDER. ALRIGHT, THOSE ARE THE FIRST WORDS OF WISDOM FOR THE DAY. UH, GUYS, DID YOU TURN YOUR VIDEOS ON? OKAY, GOOD. ALRIGHT, LET ME PREVIEW THE AGENDA FOR THIS AFTERNOON. THIS MORNING WE HAD OUR CALL TO ORDER. BEFORE WE GO ON, I'M GONNA AGAIN PUBLICLY RECOGNIZE SOMEONE, UH, JANE RY, WHOSE THIRD OF FOURTH DOWN ON MY LEFT, UH, IS LAST DAY OF SERVICE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS TODAY. HE HAS SERVED ABLY FOR EIGHT YEARS, AND SO LET'S GIVE HIM A ROUND OF APPLAUSE. WE HONORED HIM THIS MORNING IN OUR BRIEFING WITH A SPECIAL RECOGNITION AND PICTURES. UH, HE HAS DONE A WONDERFUL JOB OF BEING AN ADVOCATE FOR THE CITY, FOR PROPERTY OWNERS, FOR TAXPAYERS, FOR CITIZENS, AND WE WILL TRULY, TRULY MISS JAYNER AND HIS WISDOM AND PERSPECTIVE. THANK YOU AGAIN, JAY. OKAY. UH, THIS MORNING AT 10 30, WE HAD A STAFF PRESENTATION, WHICH IS TYPICAL FOR US WHERE THE STAFF WALKS US THROUGH EACH CASE GIVES US THE FACTS, WE SEE A VIDEO OF THE PROPERTY, UH, THEY GIVE US THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. UM, AND THEN WE COME TO THIS AFTERNOON WHERE WE WILL IN A MINUTE DO PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND AFTER PUBLIC TESTIMONY, UM, WE WILL HAVE, AND AGAIN, PUBLIC TESTIMONY IS TWO MINUTES MAXIMUM. UM, THEN WE WILL REVIEW, REVIEW AND APPROVE OUR MEETING MINUTES FROM AUGUST 19TH. WE WILL HAVE, UH, ONE CASE REGARDING REIMBURSEMENT OF A FEE FEE THAT'S ALREADY PAID. THEN WE WILL HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. UM, TWO ITEMS IN THE CONSENT AGENDA, KESSLER PARKWAY AND COLONIAL ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. THAT MEANS YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A HEARING FOR IT, IT JUST GOES FOR PRESUMABLY APPROVAL. THEN WE'RE GONNA GO TO A CASE THAT WE'RE GONNA HOLD OVER POTENTIALLY, UH, AFTER THAT CASE WILL HOLDER, THEN WE WILL DO DALLAS PARKWAY. AFTER DALLAS PARKWAY, WE'LL DO MELROSE. AFTER MELROSE, WE'LL DO MEADOWBROOK DRIVE. THESE ARE ALL ON THE POSTED AGENDA SEVEN DAYS AGO. QUESTIONS, BOARD MEMBERS ON THE AGENDA? OKAY. CONSISTENT WITH OUR AGENDA. THE FIRST UP, THE ITEM FOR THE BOARD IS PUBLIC TESTIMONY. UH, OUR BOARD SECRETARY, UM, AND I WILL DO THIS IN TANDEM, TWO MINUTES. WE WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS. UH, THE RULES OF PROCEDURES STATE THAT YOUR COMMENTS HAVE TO BE RELATING TO SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA TODAY, WHICH I'M SURE THERE WILL BE A LOT TO BE SAID. UM, SHE WILL BE CALLING OUT FIVE AT A TIME. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE GONNA DO, MS. WILLIAMS? SHE'LL CALL FIVE AT A TIME IF YOU'VE JUST KIND OF QUEUE UP. UH, WE'LL LEAVE THE PODIUM MIC ON SO THE FIRST PERSON'S THERE. JUST LEAVE IT ON FOR THOSE THEREAFTER AND WE WILL DO RAPID FIRE. RESPECTFULLY, BUT RAPID FIRE 'CAUSE WE'LL WANT TO HEAR FROM EVERYONE, UM, AS A, AS AS PART OF THE PUBLIC HERE IN DALLAS. MS. WILLIAMS, MS. MALLORY MUSE, DEAN RUBIN, JERRY MECCA, GREG PIERCE, KYLE HAM. PUBLIC TESTIMONY, UH, DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU BEING, UH, SWORN IN. IF YOU, IF YOU WERE TO TESTIFY DURING ONE OF THE CASES, YOU HAVE TO BE SWORN IN. BUT FOR STRAIGHT UP PUBLIC TESTIMONY, YOU'RE JUST SPEAKING AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN. UM, WHAT WE ASK FOR IS YOUR, AND EVERYTHING'S TAPE RECORDED, VIDEOTAPED AND ALL THAT. AND OUR BOARD SECRETARY HAS TO TRANSCRIBE THIS. SO WE NEED FOR A MATTER OF RECORD, YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE, YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, AND THEN TWO MINUTES. SO WHO'S UP FIRST? IT'S MALLORY MUSE. AND AGAIN, LEAVE THE MICROPHONE ON THAT WAY. IT'S JUST WE GO FORWARD. WELCOME. TURN ON THE MIC PLEASE. UH, AS THIS PANEL IS WELL AWARE, CHAMPIONS HAS EXISTED IN A LOCATION IN HOUSTON, WHICH HAS OPERATED FOR OVER TWO YEARS WITH NO [00:10:01] CRIMINAL INCIDENTS. THE STATEMENT FROM HOUSTON CITY COUNCILWOMAN TIFFANY THOMAS REPRESENTS CHAMPIONS STRONG BOND FORGED BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY, UH, BETWEEN OUR CHAMPIONS COMMUNITY AND THE CITY GOVERNMENT IN HOUSTON. COUNCILWOMAN THOMAS STATES CHAMPIONS CLUB, TEXAS IS THE GOLD STANDARD. WHILE THERE ARE SEVERAL PRIVATE MEMBERSHIP POKER CLUBS IN HOUSTON, WE HAD BEEN WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO COME ALONG THAT WE COULD POINT TO AND SAY, THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE. BY PRIORITIZING SAFETY, OFFERING CUSTOMERS A FIRST CLASS EXPERIENCE AND BEING AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN THE COMMUNITY, CHAMPIONS HAS SET THE STANDARD FOR HOW TO DO IT RIGHT. I'M GLAD TO HAVE CHAMPIONS IN MY DISTRICT SETTING THAT EXAMPLE FOR THE REST OF THE CITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. DEAN RUBIN. MY NAME IS DEAN RUBIN. UH, 1 7 7 6 DALLAS PARKWAY, DALLAS, TEXAS. I'M THE MANAGING DIRECTOR FOR CHAMPIONS OVERSEEING ALL THEIR OPERATIONS IN TEXAS. MR. CHAIRMAN, AT LAST MONTH'S HEARING, YOU ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PANEL HAD ALREADY RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED THE MANY PUBLIC COMMENTS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF CHAMPIONS. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM OUR FULL GALLERY, WE HAVE BROUGHT FOR A THIRD TIME BEFORE THIS PANEL, MANY SPEAKERS WHO HAD GLADLY ADD TO THE VOICES YOU ALREADY HEARD, HIGHLIGHTING THE QUALITY OF CHAMPIONS, PEOPLE AND ITS VALUE TO THE COMMUNITY OUT OF RESPECT FOR THIS BOARD AND ITS TIME WE HAVE ASKED THAT OUR SUPPORTERS SHOW THEIR SUPPORT TODAY BY WEARING THE BUTTONS THAT YOU SEE SAYING YES TO CHAMPIONS INSTEAD OF MAKING PUBLIC COMMENT. INSTEAD OF INSTEAD. A FEW SPEAKERS HAVE AGREED TO SPEAK TODAY ON BEHALF OF CHAMPIONS. MANY CLUB MEMBERS, EMPLOYEES, NEIGHBORS, CHARITABLE PARTNERS, AND FAMILY AND FRIENDS, SPEAKERS SUPPORTING CHAMPIONS TODAY WILL FOCUS THEIR COMMENTS ON PROVIDING THE PANEL WITH UPDATES SINCE LAST MONTH'S HEARING, AS WELL AS NEW OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. ONCE AGAIN, OUT OF RESPECT FOR THIS PANEL AND THESE PROCEEDINGS, PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE HERE, UH, OF THEIR OWN PROMPTING. WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR THEIR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OH, SORRY. ARE WE READY? I'M JERRY MECCA, 54 20 HILTON HEAD DRIVE, UH, RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM THE, FROM THE BUSINESS IN QUESTION. UM, THANK YOU CHAIRMAN NEWMAN AND JAY, SORRY TO SEE YOU GO, BUT GLAD YOU COULD MAKE THIS ONE. IT'S AN IMPORTANT VOTE. UM, I BELIEVE I SHARED THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES. IT'S MY THIRD TIME HERE TO TELL YOU THAT I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS ENTITY MADE APPLICATION FOR THIS WITH FULL TRANSPARENCY. EVEN THOUGH MEMBERS OF MY OWN HOA, WHICH I BORN BELONG TO, SHARED WITH ME STORIES THAT WERE NOT ACCURATE, UM, I THINK IT IS AN AGENDA. THEY WOULD JUST LIKE TO HAVE THEIR WAY. I FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT WE HAVE LAWS HERE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS THAT PROTECT EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THIS IS A GREAT ENTITY OPENING UP A FANTASTIC RESTAURANT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT NEEDS TO HAVE MORE OF THIS TYPE OF THINGS AND CERTAINLY LESS UNOCCUPIED BUSINESSES. 'CAUSE WE'VE SEEN WHAT THAT DOES. WE TURN THEM INTO COVID SHOOTING, UH, COVID MATCH COVID INJECTION CENTERS, AND GOD KNOWS WHAT ELSE WAS GOING ON INSIDE THIS BUILDING UNTIL THEY DID THIS. AND THEN I REALLY PUT A A, A LOT OF FAITH I'VE INVESTIGATED, UM, ISAAC AND HIS WIFE . I'VE CHECKED EVERYTHING I COULD POSSIBLY THINK OF THAT MADE MAKE ME THINK THEY'RE BEING UNSCRUPULOUS OR DOING ANYTHING DECEPTIVE. I BELIEVE THEY'RE OPERATING UNDER THE LAW AND I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS ALL AGREE AND VOTE FOR THIS APPROVAL. THEIR CO THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR RICK, GREG PIERCE. MY NAME IS GREG PIERCE. I LIVE AT 5 8 2 6 COOL WATER COVE IN DALLAS, TEXAS, WHICH IS ABOUT TWO AND ONE QUARTER MILES EAST FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. LOCATED AT 17 7 7 6 DALLAS PARKWAY. I'M A REAL ESTATE BROKER AND I REPRESENTED ALONG WITH ANOTHER REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONAL, THE PRIOR OWNER OF THE THREE FORKS BUILDING. I HAVE NO AFFILIATION WITH THE CHAMPIONS GROUP. I AM HERE BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN A CITIZEN OF DALLAS FOR MY ENTIRE LIFE AND I HAVE BEEN IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS FOR OVER 50 YEARS. I CARE ABOUT THIS CITY AND I CARE ABOUT THIS PROPERTY AND I CARE ABOUT CHAMPIONS AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE BEHIND IT. I HAVE NEVER SEEN IN MY CAREER A BUSINESS ENTITY THAT I BELIEVE HAS BEEN TREATED SO POORLY AND IN MY OPINION, UNFAIRLY BY THE CITY OF DALLAS. WHAT I WANT YOU TO KNOW IS NOBODY, [00:15:02] AND I MEAN NOBODY WAS GOING TO TAKE ON THE PURCHASE OF THIS BUILDING DUE TO THE VERY POOR PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE SIZE OF THIS 21,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I'M THE ONE TRYING TO SELL OR LEASE THE BUILDING FOR OVER TWO YEARS. THERE ARE BASICALLY NO RESTAURANT OPERATORS INTERESTED IN A BUILDING THAT'S 21,000 TO 22,000 SQUARE FEET. IN MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER, I REPRESENT A A, A GREAT MANY OF RESTAURANTS IN THE DALLAS-FORT WORTH AREA AND THE ONLY RESTAURANT THAT I HAVE THAT'S EVEN HALF OF THIS SIZE IS A 10,000 9,900 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT THAT'S GETTING READY TO OPEN IN PRESTON CENTER CALLED CASA BRASA. THIS GROUP KNOWN AS CHAMPIONS LED BY ISAAC TRUMBO, HAVE DONE A VERY BIG FAVOR FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN TAKING ON THIS BUILDING, AND THEY HAVE MADE IT LOOK AWESOME BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. I URGE YOU TO PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING TODAY AND VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS QUALITY GROUP KNOWN AS CHAMPIONS, AS THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY IS WATCHING THIS OUTCOME. THANK YOU BOARD FOR SERVICE, FOR YOUR SERVICE AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME YOUR TIME TO SIR ME TO EXPRESS MY SINCERE THOUGHTS. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. KYLE BIGMAN AND MS. WILLIAMS. WE GO AHEAD AND CALL THE NEXT FIVE PLEASE. ED LUHAN COLE COLLINS, ASHBURN HUNTER, MIKE FRIEDMAN, JASON CAMPBELL, I'M GONNA LET EVERYONE MAKE THEIR WAY DOWN SO WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION TO YOU. OKAY. PLEASE PROCEED. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS KYLE BICKHAM. I LIVE AT 9 9 2 3 CARNEGIE DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS. I ALSO OWN AND OPERATE A SUCCESSFUL PRESCHOOL IN THE CITY OF DALLAS CALLED THE MODERN TOP PRESCHOOL WITH RESPECT. UM, I CAME AGAIN TO SHARE MY OPINIONS ON WHAT I THINK'S HAPPENING TODAY. I THINK A VOTE AGAINST CHAMPIONS TODAY IS A VOTE SAYING IT'S OKAY TO TREAT CITIZENS OF DALLAS DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER, NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT, BUT BECAUSE OF POLITICAL PRESSURE AND LOBBYING. I SPEAK TODAY ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND MANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE DALLAS BUSINESS COMMUNITY WHO FOLLOW AND SUPPORT CHAMPIONS. SINCE YOU LAST HEARD FROM WE CITIZENS, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT CHOSE NOT TO REVIEW OR REVERSE YOUR PRIOR DECISION TO GIVE A CO TO THE TEXAS CARDHOUSE AND OTHER POKER ESTABLISHMENTS. YOU WERE CORRECT TO GIVE THE CO TO TCH AND OTHERS BEFORE, AND BOTH THE COURT OF APPEALS AND NOW THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT AGREED WITH YOU. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT CHAMPIONS INTENDS TO DO AND WHAT YOU ALREADY ALLOWED THOSE OTHERS TO DO. A VOTE AGAINST CHAMPIONS TODAY IS SAYING THAT IT'S OKAY FOR YOU TO APPROVE A LAND USE FOR SOME PEOPLE, BUT TO DENY IT TO OTHERS IN THE SAME POSITION. A VOTE AGAINST CHAMPIONS IS A VOTE SAYING IT'S OKAY FOR THE BOARD TO PICK FAVORITES, TO PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS IN OUR BUSINESS COMMUNITY. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I URGE YOU TO APPLY YOUR JUDGMENT WISELY TODAY. LET CHAMPIONS HAVE A CO JUST LIKE YOU LET OTHER POKER OPERATIONS HAVE THEIR COS YOU WERE RIGHT THEN AND I THINK YOU'LL BE RIGHT TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. AFTERNOON, I'M ED LUHAN, 1412 GRIFFIN STREET EAST. AGAIN, MY NAME IS ED LUHAN AND I SERVE AS CHAIRMAN FOR THE DALLAS POLICE ASSOCIATION ASSIST THE OFFICER FOUNDATION. UH, SISSY OFFICER FOUNDATION MISSION IS TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AND IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE TO ALL FIRST RESPONDERS. UH, FIRST RESPONDERS IN THE DALLAS METROPLEX CHAMPIONS HAS BEEN A PARTNER TO ASSIST THE OFFICER FOR SEVERAL YEARS. I ALSO AM A, UH, A POLICE OFFICER IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT WHERE CHAMPIONS RESIDES AND I KNOW THERE'S SOME CONCERNS REGARDING THE COMMERCIAL VACANCY ALONG THE TOLLWAY AND INCREASING CRIME AND VAGRANCY THAT GOES WITH IT. CHAMPIONS AND THEIR PROFESSIONAL SECURITY TEAM HAS PARTNERED WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BY CREATING A, UH, A BUSINESS CORRIDOR TO HAVE CRIME WATCH MEETINGS. UH, AND THEIR THEIR GOAL IS TO DERE DECREASE CRIME IN THE AREA, IMPROVE VISUAL APPEARANCE FROM ALONG THE TOLLWAY, AND MAKE THE COMMUNITY SAFER AND A BETTER PLACE, UH, TO RESIDE. UH, ASSIST THE OFFICER FOUNDATION ARE HAPPY TO HAVE CHAMPIONS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONTINUE TO ASSISTING OTHER NON-PROFITS. WE ALSO LOOK FORWARD TO PARTNERING WITH THEM IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, COLE COLLINS. UH, I LIVE AT SIXTY TWENTY EIGHT DERRICK TRAIL, [00:20:01] BORN AND RAISED IN FAR NORTH DALLAS, AND I'VE BEEN HERE FOR MY WHOLE ENTIRE LIFE. I THINK THAT, UH, THE FRANKFURT TOLLWAY AREA IS IN DIRE NEED OF SOMETHING OF THIS STATUE. I MEAN, IF YOU DRIVE AROUND THE AREA, YOU CAN TELL THAT IT'S KIND OF COMING DOWN AND I HONESTLY THINK THAT THE SOCIAL CLUB HAS BROUGHT A NEW LIFE TO THIS AREA. I MEAN, NOT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE RENOVATION THAT THEY'VE GONE THROUGH, JUST LET ALONE THE STAFF THAT THEY HAVE HIRED. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY ISS ISAAC AND DEAN ARE DOING A WONDERFUL JOB, BUT I'VE SPENT TIME THERE WITH MY WIFE, MY FRIENDS, MY FAMILY, THE HOSTESS, VANESSA, ALL THE WAY TO THE HEAD COOK. CONNIE UH, COREY, THE HEAD BAR MANAGER, JESS, ALL DO A PHENOMENAL JOB AND I THINK THAT THIS AREA COULD REALLY USE, UM, A CLUB, A SOCIAL CLUB LIKE THIS. AND, UM, JUST FOR MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I GIVE IT FIVE STARS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, MY NAME IS HUNTER BYWATERS. UH, MY ADDRESS IS 3 6 0 5 NORTHWEST PARKWAY. I'M AN ATTORNEY AND BUSINESSMAN HERE IN DALLAS. UM, IT'S NOT EASY GETTING HERE ON A TUESDAY, AS, AS EVERYBODY HERE KNOWS. UM, HOLD ON ONE SECOND SIR. SURE. IS HE ON YOUR LIST? I DON'T SEE HIM ON MINE. ASHBURN, IT'S ASHBURN HUNTER BYWATERS THE THIRD. OH, IT'S A BLUE SLIP. OKAY. ALRIGHT, GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. THANKS. I'M DOING A CHECKLIST AS WE GO. OKAY. I APOLOGIZE. YOU COULD START OVER. I APOLOGIZE. THAT'S OKAY. I'LL, I'LL CONTINUE. UM, I'M HERE BECAUSE I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THE DALLAS BUSINESS COMMUNITY IS WATCHING THESE PROCEEDINGS VERY CAREFULLY. UH, WE EXPECT AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD IN DALLAS RULES APPLIED UNEVENLY OR IGNORED BECAUSE A POLITICAL PRESSURE IS BAD FOR ALL BUSINESS IN DALLAS. PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS IN AN INDUSTRY IS BAD FOR ALL BUSINESSES IN DALLAS. WE'RE DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS KIND OF TREATMENT TO ANY INDUSTRY. FAVORITISM AND INCONSISTENCY DESTROYS THE CITY'S ECONOMIC VITALITY, LEGAL POKER CLUBS LIKE THOSE YOU ALREADY HAVE APPROVED. AND CHAMPIONS KEEP MONEY FLOWING INTO OUR LOCAL, LOCAL ECONOMY, NOT TO OKLAHOMA. LEGAL CLUBS ELIMINATE UNDERGROUND GAMBLING AND REDUCE CRIME. I ASK YOU THAT TO APPLY YOUR POWER EVENLY AND TO PROTECT THE WAY WE DO BUSINESS IN DALLAS. UH, I'VE BEEN IN THE POKER COMMUNITY FOR WELL OVER A DECADE. THESE CLUBS, LEGAL POKER CLUBS DO A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT IN REDUCING CRIME, INCLUDING POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL WEAPONS, DRUGS, PROSTITUTION. YOU GO TO THESE CLUBS, THE LEGAL CLUBS, AND THERE'S NONE OF THAT. AND WITHOUT THESE CLUBS, THE UNDERGROUND CLUBS BRINGING THE CRIME WILL COME BACK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. MY NAME IS MIKE FRIEDMAN. I'VE BEEN IN THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS FOR WELL OVER 50 YEARS. WE NEED YOUR ADDRESS TOO, SIR. I'M SORRY. 5 1 0 4 BRIAR GROVE. I'M A VERY PROUD HOMEOWNER. IN FACT, I LIVE ON THE SAME STREET IN VENTRY NORTH AS THIS WONDERFUL CHAMPIONS CLUB IS ON FOR PLUS, FOR OVER 40 YEARS I'VE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I TRULY CARE ABOUT MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOME VALUES. THIS PROPERTY WAS VACANT FOR OVER TWO YEARS. WE COULDN'T FIND, THEY COULDN'T FIND A TENANT, THEY COULDN'T FIND ANYBODY. TAKE IT OVER. IT WAS COMPLETELY RANSACKED. THE AC WAS STOLEN, UH, COPPER WAS TAKEN OUTTA THE BUILDING. THE NEW OWNERS HAVE TURNED THIS BUILDING INTO THE ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE BUILDINGS IN AN ENTIRE CITY OF DALLAS. IT IS A SHOW PLACE. IT'S ABSOLUTELY ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL RESTAURANTS YOU'LL FIND IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. THIS IS A FIRST CLASS AND VERY, VERY PROFESSIONAL OWNERSHIP. THE SECURITY THE NEW OWNERS ARE PROPOSING IS ABSOLUTELY STATE OF THE ART. EVERYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BENEFIT FROM THE SECURITY THAT CHAMPIONS IS, IS PROPOSING. IF THIS BUILDING GOES VACANT, WE WILL ONCE AGAIN AND WE AS NEIGHBORS WILL ONCE AGAIN HAVE HOMELESS, WILL HAVE, UH, THEFT IN THE BUILDING. UM, AND THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS SPENT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AT THE CORNER OF TRINITY MILLS AND THE TOLLWAY AND, UM, THE TOLLWAY AND FRANKFORT WITH STEEL FENCES, WITH SHARP, UH, WHAT DO YOU CALL 'EM, UM, PEGS ON TOP TO KEEP AWAY THE HOMELESS. SO THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING. THE OWNERSHIP IS A PLUS AND THEY WILL BRING VALUE AND THEY'LL BRING SECURITY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. I'LL LOOK. YOU CAN COME FORWARD HERE. YES, SIR. WE CALL THE NEXT FIVE. AND JUST HOLD FOR ONE SECOND, [00:25:01] SIR. ABBY GRAY JAMA, UM, SORRY, I CAN'T PRONOUNCE THE NAME. LAST NAME. TERRY WEDO. KEN BOOM. JESSICA SULLIVAN. GOOD AFTERNOON. OH, PARDON ME. I'M GONNA LET EVERYONE GET SITUATIONS SO WE'RE RESPECTFUL. RESPECTFUL FOR YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE MISSING ONE PERSON. I'M GONNA WAIT. OKAY. AND YOUR NAME IS SIR KEN. OKAY, SO YOU'RE GONNA SCRATCH HIM. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, PROCEED SIR. JASON CAMPBELL, 2 0 0 5 FOX BEND TRACE. MY NAME IS JASON CAMPBELL AND I MOVED TO THE DALLAS AREA 25 YEARS AGO, AND I'VE BEEN IN THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY FOR 33 YEARS. I'M GONNA COME, UH, TO THIS PANEL WITH A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. UH, I STARTED WORKING AT THREE FORK STEAKHOUSE IN 2000, WORKING FOR DALE WSTA AND HIS FAMILY AS AND EVENTUALLY GENE STREET AND HIS FAMILY. I RAN THAT OPERATION, UH, SUCCESSFULLY AS A GENERAL MANAGER AND WORKED MY WAY THROUGH THE RANKS. MANY OF THE FOLKS THAT ARE HERE IN THE GALLERY ARE PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE SERVED SUCCESSFULLY AND GRACEFULLY OVER THE YEARS. IT WAS INCREDIBLY SADDENING WHEN THREE FOURS CLOSED, IRONICALLY, FIVE YEARS AND SEVEN DAYS AGO TO THIS DAY. AND IN THE, IN UH, SEPTEMBER OF 2020, I WORKED WITH A LOT OF GREAT PEOPLE AND WE DELIVERED OUTSTANDING SERVICE AND WORLD-CLASS FOOD TO THE PATRONS OF THREE FORKS IN THE DALLAS COMMUNITY. WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY CAME ALONG TO RE RETURN TO THE PROPERTY, I DID IT IME. I DIDN'T IMMEDIATELY TAKE IT. IT WAS IMPORTANT TO MY WIFE AND I TO BE ROLE MODELS FOR OUR THREE YOUNG CHILDREN. IRONICALLY, MY WIFE WORKS FOR THE CHURCH THAT WE ATTEND AND WE'RE ACTIVE IN CHARITIES FOR THE ARMED SERVICES, FIRST RESPONDERS IN THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR US NOT ONLY TO TALK ABOUT INTEGRITY, BUT TO ALSO WALK IT AND MODEL THAT FOR OUR CHILDREN, UH, TO LIVE IT. BEFORE I JOINED THE CHAMPIONS TEAM, I LOOKED INTO THE BUSINESS MODEL AND ALSO MANAGING PARTNERS. AND IT WAS IMPORTANT TO OUR FAMILY THAT, UH, WE MET WITH ISAAC AND ROY AND WE WERE CONFIDENT IN MAKING THAT RIGHT DECISION. WHEN I WALKED IN AND SAW THE DEGRADATION, IT BROKE MY HEART. I WALKED IN AND SAW MOLD, UH, DAMAGE, UM, VAGRANCY EVERYTHING THAT YOU CAN IMAGINE A A, A BIG PROPERTY. AND AFTER COMING ALONG ALL THESE YEARS, THE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES THAT, UH, MR. TRUMBO AND MR UM, UH, MR. ROY PUT INTO THE BUILDING IS UNFATHOMABLE. I FIRMLY BELIEVE WITH ALL MY HEART, HAVING SEEN IT WITH SMITH ALINSKY'S, THAT THAT PROPERTY WOULD STILL BE VACANT AND BE A NUISANCE TO THE COMMUNITY THAT, THAT ARE, UH, THAT ARE ATTENDING HERE. WITHOUT THE, THE INVESTMENT AND THE CAPITAL RESOURCES, IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE A SHAME. IN ADDITION, OUT OF THAT HAS COME REALLY GREAT EMPLOYEES. I AM NO LONGER WORKING FOR CHAMPIONS, BUT I FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR MY VOICE TO BE HEARD. ON BEHALF OF ROY AND ISAAC, UH, PLEASE CONSIDER THIS MEANINGFULLY AND, UM, THEY'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I'M ABBY GRAY, DEVELOPMENT MANAGER FOR THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF COLLIN COUNTY. I LIVE AT 1705 SALVIA SPRINGS AND I'M A SUPPORTER OF THE CHAMPIONS CLUB. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOU TO APPROVE. CHAMPION CO CHAMPIONS HAVE SUPPORTED OUR ORGANIZATION SINCE 2021 AND THIS YEAR WE FINALLY HOSTED OUR POKER TOURNAMENT AT THEIR VENUE. IT WAS THE MOST PROFESSIONAL EVENT TO DATE. THE DOLLARS RAISED DIRECTLY FUND TUTORING, STEM LEADERSHIP AND MENTORSHIP PROGRAMS FOR THE YOUTH IN COLLIN COUNTY. CHAMPION SHOWS UP AS A TRUE PARTNER AND THAT PARTNERSHIP DELIVERS REAL OUTCOMES FOR LOCAL FAMILIES. IN PLANNING AND EXECUTING OUR EVENT, THE CHAMPIONS TEAM WAS METICULOUS, CLEAR PLANS FOR PARKING AND GUEST FLOW, COURTEOUS STAFF, ATTENTIVE SECURITY AND PROACTIVE COMMUNICATION AROUND LOAD-IN, OUT AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONSIDERATIONS. THEY OPERATE THOUGHTFULLY AND RESPONS CHAMPIONS IS AN ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY. I URGE YOU TO APPROVE SO THEY CAN CONTINUE SERVING GUESTS AND SUPPORTING THE NONPROFITS THAT DEPEND ON THEM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. MY NAME IS RENA. MY ADDRESS IS 8 8 0 4 [00:30:01] SHEPHERD DRIVE AND I SERVE AS THE VICE PRESIDENT OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF COLLIN COUNTY. CHAMPIONS SOCIAL CLUB HAS BEEN A COMMITTED PARTNER TO US SINCE 2021. THIS YEAR WHEN THEY HOSTED A POKER TOURNAMENT, IT BECAME OUR MOST PROFESSIONAL EVENT TO DATE. AND THE FUNDS RACE ARE NOW FEELING PROGRAMS IN ACADEMIC SUCCESS, LEADERSHIP AND CHARACTER FOR THE KIDS IN COLLIN COUNTY. WHAT STANDS OUT IS HOW CHAMPIONS OPERATES WITH CARE, RESPONSIBILITY AND RESPECT FOR BOTH GUESTS AND NEIGHBORS. THEIR PROFESSIONALISM MAKES THEM NOT JUST A VENUE, BUT A TRUE COMMUNITY PARTNER. WE ALREADY HAVE OUR 2026 FUNDRAISING EVENT PLANNED ON APRIL 9TH AT THE CHAMPIONS CLUB. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. ON BEHALF OF THE THOUSANDS OF YOUTH THAT BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS SERVE, I URGE YOU, I URGE YOUR APPROVAL SO CHAMPIONS CAN CONTINUE SUPPORTING NONPROFITS AND STRENGTHENING FAMILIES IN OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOU'D STEP FORWARD AND HOLD FOR A SECOND, MS. WILLIAMS, IF YOU'D CALL THE NEXT FIVE PEOPLE. I HAVE MS. KATHLEEN WAKI ONLINE, THEN VICE, NO, I WANNA DO ONLINE LAST. YOU WANNA DO ONLINE LAST. OKAY. I GIVE PRIORITY TO THE PEOPLE WHO SHOW UP IN PERSON. OKAY, SO LET'S DO ALL RIGHT IN PERSON FIRST, ONCE SECOND. VICE ARIA, UM, JOVAN. OKAY. SOME, I'M SORRY. . DEEPAK PATEL. TANYA CLARK. ADRIANA CODO. OKAY, SIR, YOU MAY, YOU MAY CONTINUE. UH, TERRY G***O, 7 4 2 1 FRANKFURT ROAD. UH, I AM IN FAVOR OF CHAMPIONS SOCIAL CLUB. I HAVE FREQUENTED THAT, UM, AREA, UH, BEFORE. SO, UH, CHAMPIONS, UH, ARRIVED AND I'M IN FAVOR OF CHAMPIONS BECAUSE THEY HAVE DEFINITELY MADE A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT TO THAT SITE. UH, THE HOMELESS HAVE BEEN ERADICATED, JOB CREATIONS, UM, AND STAFF IS AWESOME. THE LEADERSHIP IS GREAT. GO CHAMPIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. THAT'S WHY I'M HERE. NO, I'M GONNA TRANSLATE. YOU'RE GONNA TRANSLATE FOR US. OKAY. SO AFTER HE'S DONE, GO AHEAD. AL DRIVE. YOU'RE GONNA DO IT CONCURRENTLY OR AFTER HIM. OKAY. CENTENNIAL DRIVE, THE CHAMPIONS. CHAMPIONS AND CHAMPIONS. CHAMPIONS. THANK YOU. CAN I ASK? YES. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S JESSICA SULLIVAN. I'M A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE. WE WANT TO HEAR YOU. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME'S JESSICA SULLIVAN. I'M THE RESTAURANT MANAGER AT CHAMPIONS AND I'M HERE TO TRANSLATE WHAT VICENTE JUST SHARED. UM, MY CURRENT ADDRESS IS 1311 HIDDEN RIDGE, IRVING, TEXAS. UM, MY NAME IS VICENTE. I LIVE AT 32 31 TEL DRIVE, [00:35:01] GARLAND, TEXAS. I SPEAK FOR MYSELF AND I SPEAK FOR MY FAMILY AND ALL 35 EMPLOYEES AT CHAMPIONS AND INCLUDING THEIR FAMILIES WHO DEPEND ON THESE JOBS. SINCE CHAMPIONS HAS RECEIVED ITS CERTIFICATES OF O OCCUPANCY, I'VE WORKED HARD AND WITH PRIDE TO SERVE OUR MEMBERS AND OUR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. MANY OF US MOVED HERE FOR THESE OPPORTUNITIES, INCLUDING MYSELF, OUR JOB SUPPORT, OUR CHILDREN, AND OUR LOVED ONES. THIS BUILDING HOLDS A VERY SPECIAL PLACE FOR ME. I STARTED AS A DISHWASHER IN 1980 OR 1998. I AM NOW THE NUMBER TWO COOK AT THE KITCHEN AT CHAMPIONS. CHAMPIONS HAS GIVEN ME OPPORTUNITIES IN MY CAREER THAT I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD HAVE BEFORE. I MET MY WIFE IN THIS BUILDING AND NOW I HAVE FOUR BEAUTIFUL CHILDREN. MY DAUGHTER RECENTLY WENT TO STUDY IN GERMANY AND FILLED US WITH PRIDE, WHICH ALSO CREATED FURTHER FINANCIAL PRESSURE FOR YOUR APPROVAL. MY JOB AT CHAMPION SUSTAINS MIFA FAMILY IN THESE DIFFICULT TIMES. WE ALL HAVE A GOOD WELL-PAYING JOB IN THIS CITY. IF YOU EVOKE OUR OCCUPANCY, IT'LL BE DISRUPTING OUR CURRENT LIVES AND OUR CAREERS. PLEASE THINK OF OUR FAMILIES WHEN YOU MAKE THESE IMPORTANT DECISIONS TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HI THERE. MY NAME IS JOE BON AND I LIVED ON 44 0 9 KING SOKO DRIVE IN FORT WORTH, TEXAS. NOW, I'VE BEEN WATCHING THIS CASE FOR THE PAST THREE TO FIVE YEARS NOW. I LITERALLY KNOW THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT POKER CLUB. A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE. THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT POKER CLUBS. THEY LITERALLY JUST ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO TWO OTHER POKER CLUB THAT JUST OPENED UP IN JUNE. THEY KNEW THAT THEY WERE DOING POKER AND THEY STILL ISSUED THE CO NOW, RIGHT NOW THEY STILL HAVEN'T REVOKED THOSE PEOPLE'S CO KNOWING THAT THEY'RE DOING POKER THERE. WE CAN LITERALLY GO THERE RIGHT NOW AFTER THIS HEARING IN PLAY POKER. THE CITY KNOWS ABOUT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT KNOWS THIS AND THEY STILL DIDN'T REVOKE THEIR CO. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. I JUST THINK WE SHOULD ALL BE TREATED FAIRLY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, SIR. PLEASE PROCEED. MY NAME'S DEEPAK PATEL. I LIVE AT 4 7 0 7 INTERLOCHEN CIRCLE, UH, IN VENTRY NORTH. I'M A MEMBER OF THE HOA AND MY HOME IS 601 FEET FROM CHAMPIONS. UM, PROPERTY. I'M HERE TO, TO BE IN FAVOR OF CHAMPIONS. I'VE BEEN IN FAVOR SINCE I BOUGHT MY HOUSE LAST YEAR. UH, UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY WERE PLANNING ON DOING, WHAT THEY, WHAT THEIR GOAL WAS GONNA BE, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TO THEIR FACILITY IN HOUSTON AND I'VE SEEN IT MYSELF. THEY TOOK A HOTEL THAT WAS ON THE VERGE OF BEING SHUT DOWN AND CONVERTED IT INTO A POKER, YOU KNOW, POKER HALL WITH A HOTEL. IT'S PHENOMENAL. IT'S GREAT. IT'S BEAUTIFUL HERE. THEY'VE TAKEN A LITTLE DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, STEP. THEY'VE PUT A, AN EXPENSIVE RESTAURANT. YOU GUYS CHARGE TOO MUCH EXPENSIVE RESTAURANT ON THE FIRST FLOOR. AND, AND I THINK THE PLAN IS TO DO POKER UPSTAIRS. NOW I SAY THAT IT'S EXPENSIVE FOR A REASON. I OWN SIX HOTELS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. THREE ARE MARRIOTTS AND THREE ARE HILTON'S. THEY'RE EXPENSIVE. WHY? BECAUSE I WANNA MAKE MONEY. IT'S AN INVESTMENT. THESE PEOPLE HAVE PUT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THIS PROPERTY IF YOU THINK THAT THEY'RE GONNA ALLOW VAGRANCY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO HAPPEN. YOU DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW BUSINESS IS DONE. THEY DIDN'T INVEST ALL THEIR MONEY, THEIR LIFE SAVINGS TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT REGARDLESS, UH, IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO GO THERE, GO THERE. IT'S BEAUTIFUL. IT'S, IT'S WELL MAINTAINED. STAFF IS UNBELIEVABLE. THE OWNERSHIP IS UN UNBELIEVABLE. THE MANAGEMENT IS UNBELIEVABLE. AND THEY ARE, IT'S WEIRD BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN ON THE UP AND UP THIS ENTIRE TIME. THEY'VE NEVER HIDDEN ANYTHING FROM ANYONE CITY OF DALLAS OR THE HOMEOWNERS. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OR CITY OF DALLAS WOULD THINK THAT THEY'RE HIDING SOMETHING NOW. THEY COULD HAVE HIT IT TO BEGIN WITH. YOU'RE TIME IS UP. IT WOULD'VE BEEN BETTER PERSON. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. TH IF YOU MA'AM, IF YOU'D COME FORWARD, BUT HOLD FOR A SECOND. MS. WILLIAMS, WOULD YOU CALL THE NEXT FIVE? TRENT TOUCHTONE. SCOTT SIMMONS, VIVIAN UNGER, STEVE UNGER, [00:40:01] MISTY NELSON. BY THE WAY, EVERYONE'S DOING WELL THIS YEAR. EVERYONE'S KEEPING TO THE LIMITS AND HANDLING WELL, SO LET'S CONTINUE ON. PROBABLY GOT 50 MORE TO GO. YOU MAY PROCEED. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS TANYA CLARK. I LIVE AT 53 30 STONE FALLS. IN ADDITION TO BEING A NEIGHBOR, LIVING A LITTLE LESS THAN A MILE FROM THE ACTUAL LOCATION, I'M ALSO THE CFO FOR CHAMPIONS. UM, JUST A REMINDER THAT WE HAVE INVESTED OVER $15 MILLION IN ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY AND RENOVATING IT. UM, A LITTLE OVER TWO YEARS AGO, I WAS AT A UNIQUE, UH, PLACE IN MY CAREER. UM, MY FAMILY IS VERY BLESSED AND I HAD A CHOICE OF WHO I GOT TO GO TO WORK FOR NEXT IN MY LAST CHAPTER AND I CHOSE CHAMPIONS AND THE GROUP AT KNIGHTED. ROY AND ISAAC ARE INCREDIBLE LEADERS. THEY'RE INCREDIBLE PEOPLE. UM, I WOULD NOT HAVE JOINED AN ORGANIZATION THAT WAS SEEDY OR UNDERGROUND, UM, BUT I DO WANNA REMIND EVERYONE WE HAVE OVER $600,000 IN SECURITY INVESTMENTS. UM, WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ECHO THE EXPERTS IN THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY AND, AND THE OTHER NEIGHBORS WHO COMMENT ABOUT THE IMPACT THAT VACANCY OR VA COMMERCIAL VACANCIES AND THE VAGRANCY HAVE HAD ON THE FRANKFURT TOLLWAY CORRIDOR. I SPOKE LAST TIME THAT THERE'S OVER 110,000 VACANT SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE WITHIN ONE MILE BETWEEN TRINITY MILLS AND FRANKFORT ROAD. FOR ANY OF YOU WHO TRAVEL THE TOLLWAY, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENED TO THE SMITH AND WILINSKI BUILDING AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE HAVE, UM, UNIN UNINTERESTED LANDOWNERS WHO HOLD FAST COMMERCIAL STAKES ALONG THESE TYPES OF AREAS. IT INVITES HOMELESSNESS, IT INVITES CRIMES. UM, WE HAVE NEIGHBORS WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE PARKING LOT PARTIES THAT GO ON AT 2:00 AM THAT, UM, ARE DISRUPTIVE AND WE DON'T WANT THAT. THAT IS NOT HOW WE OPERATE. SO I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF, UM, ALL THE PROFESSIONALS THAT I GET TO WORK WITH DAY IN AND DAY OUT IN THE STATE OF TEXAS AND OUR OTHER COMPANIES, UM, AND OUR CORPORATE STAFF THAT WORK HERE IN THE, IN THE DALLAS AREA AND URGE YOU TO PLEASE, PLEASE REMEMBER HOW YOU VOTED FOR TCH AS YOU VOTE TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON PANEL. MY NAME IS ADRIAN VEO. I'M A 26 27 56 27, I'M SORRY. PRESTON DALLAS. I'M A PRIVATE HEALTH INSPECTOR. I OWN MY OWN FOOD SAFETY COMPANY. MY JOB IS TO MAKE SURE THAT CHAMPION STATE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. THAT IS MY JOB MONTHLY. OKAY. WITH RESPECT A VOTE AGAINST CHAMPIONS TODAY IS A VOTE SAYING IT'S OKAY TO TREAT CITIZENS OF DALLAS DIFFERENT FROM OTHERS, NOT BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENCE, BECAUSE OF THE POLITICAL PRESSURES AND LOBBYING SPEAK. I SPEAK TODAY ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND MANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE DALLAS BUSINESS COMMUNITY WHO FOLLOWS THE SUPPORT AND SUPPORTS CHAMPIONS. SINCE YOU LAST HEARD, UM, FROM WE, THE CITIZENS, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT CHOSE TO REVIEW AND REVERSE THE PRIOR DECISION TO GIVE CO TO TEXAS COURTHOUSE AND OTHER POKER ESTABLISHMENTS. YOU WERE CORRECT TO GIVE THE CO TO TCH AND OTHERS BEFORE AND BOTH THE COURT OF APPEALS AND NOW THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT AGREES WITH YOU. THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHICH WHAT CHAMPIONS INTEND TO DO AND WHAT ALREADY HAS DONE. THE OTHER ONES A VOTE AGAINST CHAMPIONS TODAY IS SAYING THAT IT'S OKAY FOR YOU TO APPROVE AND THEN USE OF SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO DENIED OTHERS IN THE SAME POSITION. A VOTE AGAINST CHAMPION VOTE, SAYING IT'S OKAY FOR THE BOARD TO PICK FAVORS, TO PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. A MEMBER OF THE BOARD. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, OUR URGE TO APPLY A JUDGMENT WISELY TODAY. LAST CHAMPION HAVE A CEO. LET'S LET CHAMPION HAVE A CEO. JUST KEEP, JUST, JUST LIKE YOU LET THE OTHERS POKER STATE, UH, OPERATIONS HAVE A SEAL. YOU'LL WRITE THEN AND YOU WILL BE RIGHT RIGHT NOW. OKAY? SO I URGE YOU TO DO SO. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS TRENT TOUCHSTONE. I LIVE AT 25 20 MATTERHORN LANE IN FLOWER MOUNT TEXAS. UM, I'M RETIRED UNITED STATES CHIEF DEPUTY MARSHALL, SERVING 28 YEARS OF SERVICE ALL IN THE DALLAS CITY [00:45:01] OF DALLAS. YOU KNOW, FROM MY EXPERTISE IN CRIME PREVENTION AND MY REMARKS FROM MY REMARKS LAST MONTH IN, IN THE PREVIOUS HEARINGS, YOU KNOW, I HAVE THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR THE CHAMPIONS LEADERSHIP AND THEIR CHARACTER. I WOULD NOT BECOME INVOLVED WITH ANY TYPE OF ORGANIZATION THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE STATE LAWS OF TEXAS IN ANY, ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. I WON'T REPEAT MYSELF IN MY CAREER, BUT I WANTED TO SHARE SOME UPDATES SINCE WE LAST SPOKE. CHAMPIONS IS WORKING TO ESTABLISH A NEIGHBORHOOD CRIME WATCH GROUP. WE ARE WORKING WITH THE LOCAL BUSINESSES IN THE AREA AND MEMBERS OF THE VENTRY NORTH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS NEW GROUP. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE REGISTERED WITH CONNECT DALLAS, A NEW PUBLIC SAFETY PROGRAM BY THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, ENABLING CITIZENS TO HELP KEEP THEIR COMMUNITY SAFE. CHAMPIONS IS ALSO USING OUR SECURITY SYSTEMS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE TO DETER HOMELESSNESS AND VACANCY BY IDENTIFYING MOVEMENTS AND SOURCES AND REPORTING THAT TO DPD. FINALLY, YOU MORE THAN LIKELY WILL HEAR COMMENTS, UM, AS WE GO OUT THROUGHOUT THIS HEARING THAT THEY ONLY HAVE SECURITY BECAUSE THEY ONLY HAVE PUT SECURITY THERE. BECAUSE OF THIS, THESE ARE SPECULATIONS AND RUMORS. THIS IS NOT CORRECT OR FACTUAL. MY JOB IS TO MAKE OUR AREA SAFE. IF YOU KNEW ME AT ALL, YOU KNOW THAT, THAT I AM VERY PROACTIVE IN REGARDING DETERRING CRIME AND NOT REACTIVE. I DON'T EXPECT A INCREASE IN CRIME CHAMPIONS. ON THE CONTRARY, I BELIEVE WITH OUR SECURITY, OUR CRIME WATCH GROUP AND WORKING TOGETHER ALONG WITH THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, WE WILL MAKE OUR AREA AROUND VENTRE SAFE, SAFER. I WANT TO BE A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE THAT OUR SECURITY STRATEGY DETERS ANY POTENTIAL CRIMINALS, NOT ONLY FOR CHAMPIONS BUT FOR THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD IN OUR AREA. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. HELLO. THANK YOU TO THE BOARD FOR CONTINUING TO HEAR OUR CONCERNS. MY NAME IS SCOTT SIMON AND MY ADDRESS IS 48 0 7 C PINES DRIVE IN THE AFFECTED NEIGHBORHOOD OF BEN TREE NORTH. I'M ALSO HERE AS A PROXY FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE MITCHELL PTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. THE NEARBY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. THE PRESIDENT'S NAME IS LISA SIMON WHO RESIDES AT THE SAME ADDRESS. I WILL RE BRIEF AS THIS IS NOW THE THIRD TIME WE HAVE STOOD BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE TO REQUEST. THEY UPHOLD THEIR OWN DECISION TO REVOKE THE CEO OF THIS POKER ROOM. AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, THAT'S WHAT IT IS. I'M SURE THEY HAVE A FANTASTIC RESTAURANT, BUT IT IS A POKER ROOM. POKER AND GAMBLING HAVE NO PLACE IN RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES WHERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, PRESCHOOLS AND CHURCHES ARE JUST BLOCKS AWAY. THE FACT IS CRIME IS ESCALATED AROUND THESE ESTABLISHMENTS AND CHAMPIONS OR MAYBE ITS CONTENDERS. I WHO KNOWS, THEY'RE CERTAINLY TRYING TO CREATE CONFUSION TO OBFUSCATE THE SITUATION. ADMITS THAT WITH THEIR OWN ACTIONS OF ENHANCED SECURITY AROUND THE PROPERTY, WHETHER POKER IS LEGAL OR ILLEGAL, IT HAS BEEN A GRAY AREA. AND BECAUSE OF THAT FACT, THE CITY HASN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO IMPLEMENT APPROPRIATE ZONING AND PERMITTING LIMITATIONS SURROUNDING THESE TYPES OF ESTABLISHMENT BECAUSE OF THIS UNCERTAINTY. AND THESE ESTABLISHMENTS HAVE TRIED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT. THERE NEEDS TO BE ZONING RESTRICTIONS NOT IN RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES. PLEASE DO WHAT IS RIGHT, WHAT IS LAW AND UPHOLD THE DECISION NOT TO GRANT THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO A POKER ROOM THAT IS NO PLACE NEAR OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. ALRIGHT, IF YOU WOULD JUST HOLD FOR ONE SECOND. YOU CAN COME FORWARD. JUST HOLD FOR ONE SECOND. JUST HOLD RIGHT THERE. MS. WILLIAMS. IF YOU'D CALL THE NEXT FIVE. KATHY USHER. TRACY MCCUTCHIN. DAVID WALTER PETER, SAVVY JOE ALLEN. OKAY, YOU MAY PROCEED. GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD CHAIRMAN NEWNAN. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. I'M MISTY NELSON. I LIVE AT 4 7 0 3 BRIAR GROVE LANE, LESS THAN 200 FEET FROM CONTENDERS. I LIKE ISAAC. I I LIKE TRENT. I LIKE CHAMPIONS. I WANT THEM TO THRIVE AND SUCCEED AS A RESTAURANT AS WE KNEW IT HOW THREE FORKS WAS. I VERY MUCH WANT THAT. I LIKE WHAT THEY'VE DONE TO THE PROPERTY, BUT NONE OF US WANT INDUCED RISK OF INCREASED CRIME IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY EVEN HELPED ME WITH SURVEILLANCE WHEN OUR THIRD TRUCK WAS STOLEN OUT OF OUR DRIVEWAY. [00:50:02] I DON'T WANT CRIME INCREASED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY KNOWING IT WOULD BE ILL-GOTTEN AND ENDORSED BY A TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF LOOPHOLE TO ALLOW POKER IN UNDER THE GUISE OF CONTENDERS OPERATING AS A PRIVATE MEMBERSHIP SHOULD BE STOPPED. HERE'S WHY. THIS IS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING, NOT A HOME, NOT A RESIDENCE. TEXAS LAW PRIVATE PLACE PROVISION WAS INTENDED FOR GAMES IN PRIVATE HOMES, NOT IN COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS. FLOATING THE LAW TO EXPLOIT THIS SO-CALLED LOOPHOLE CLEARLY UNDERMINES THE RULE OF TEXAS LAW. REGARDING POKER, THE MEMBERSHIP FEE MODEL IS ACTUALLY AN ILLEGAL CIRCUMVENTION OF TEXAS STATE GAMBLING LAWS FOR THE COLLECTIVE GOOD AND THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. PLEASE DENY THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY DUE TO ITS SLATED POKER INTENT. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL. MY NAME IS VIVIAN UNGER. I LIVE AT 5 1 1 5 SPYGLASS DRIVE, DALLAS 7 5 2 8 7, WHICH I, MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE LIVED IN BEN TREE NORTH FOR 20 YEARS WHERE WE RAISED OUR TWO KIDS. I'M ON THE BEN TREE NORTH, HOA BOARD MEMBER. UH, I AM OPPOSED TO CHAMPIONS RECEIVING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY DUE TO THE CRIME INCIDENCES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH POKER CLUBS. HOUSTON IS THE EPICENTER IN THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR POKER ROOMS. THEY EVEN HAVE A CHAMPIONS POKER CLUB IN HOUSTON. MY REPORT IS FROM THE GLENDA GORDY RESEARCH CENTER. THEY CONDUCTED ANALYSIS TO IDENTIFY CRIME INCIDENTS AT GAMBLING AND POKER FACILITIES IN HARRIS COUNTY BETWEEN 2021 AND 2023. SO IF YOU CAN SEE, FIGURE ONE PART OF THIS PRESENTATION IS ALL ABOUT VIOLENT OFFENSES AND THE TOTAL VIOLENT OFFENSES IN HARRIS COUNTY FROM 2021 TO 2023 IS 17,665. THE PREDOMINANT ONE WOULD BE AGGRAVATED ASSAULT OFFENSES, WHICH IS 64% 11,425 CASES. THE SECOND LARGEST WOULD BE SEX OFFENSES, WHICH IS 22% 44 4,490, FOLLOWED BY ROBBERY 1,275 CASES, HOMICIDE OFFENSES, 228 CASES, KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION, 208 CASES AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING 49 CASES. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE BOARD THAT WE HAVE OVER 1200 SIGNATURES FROM THE TAXPAYERS AND PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN VENTRY NORTH, VENTRY WEST AND IN NORTH DALLAS. AND THEY ARE AGAINST OPPOSED TO CHAMPIONS POKER CLUB. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. HELLO, MY NAME IS STEVE UNGER. I LIVE ALSO AT 5 1 1 5 SPLA DRIVE IN DALLAS, TEXAS WITH MY WIFE VIVIAN FOR 20 YEARS. I'M OPPOSED TO CHAMPIONS RECEIVING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY DUE TO THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IT'LL BRING TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. ONCE AGAIN, HOUSTON IS THE EPICENTER UH, FOR POKER. THIS PART TWO OF THE GLEN GLENDA GORDY RESEARCH CENTER CONSISTS OF HARRIS COUNTY FBA DATA FOR NONVIOLENT INCIDENCES FROM 2021 TO 2023 NEAR GAMBLING AND POKER ESTABLISHMENTS. LET'S REVIEW THE FACTS IN THERE. THERE WAS OVER 145,877 NON-VIOLENT INCIDENCES. 50,803 WERE ASSAULT OFFENSES, WHICH MAKES UP 35% 32,716 LARCENY AND THEFT OFFENSES, WHICH MAKES UP 22% 22,737 DESTRUCTION DAMAGE VANDALISMS OF PROPERTY 15.2%. 12,906 FOR FRAUD OFFENSES MAKES UP 8.8% 10,183 MOTOR VEHICLE THEFTS, 7.5% 10,139 BURGLARIES BREAKING AND ENTERING 7% AND 6,393 OTHER ASSORTED [00:55:01] NONVIOLENT OFFENSES THAT MAKES UP 4.5%. IN SUMMARY, THE COMBINED TWO YEAR TOTAL FOR VIOLENT AND NONVIOLENT CRIMINAL OFFENSES IN HARRIS COUNTY FOR GAMBLING POKER ESTABLISHED IS AN ASTOUNDING 163,542. LET ME ASK YOU THIS, DOES DALLAS HAVE THE BUDGET TO INCREASE THEIR STAFF JUST TO HANDLE THE POTENTIAL CRIME INCIDENCES WITH CHAMPIONS POKER CLUB? I STRONGLY OPPOSE CHAMPIONS SOCIAL POKER CLUB RECEIVING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AT THE ENTRANCE OF BEN ENTRY NORTH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. MY NAME IS TRACY MCCUTCHEN. I RESIDE AT 52 0 2 HARBOR TOWN DRIVE IN BEN TREE NORTH. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. NOT LONG AGO I RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT GREG WILLIS WAS IN OPPOSITION TO POKER CLUBS AND I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS WAS TEXAS LAW. SECONDLY, LARGE CLUBS LIKE CHAMPIONS CONSISTENTLY DRAW HUNDREDS TO THOUSANDS OF PARTICIPANTS TO MAJOR EVENTS. WHERE WILL THEY ALL PARK? I LIVE ONLY A FEW BLOCKS FROM NORTH DALLAS PARKWAY AND A FEW BLOCKS FROM BRIAR GROVE WHERE THE PROPOSED CHAMPION SITS. TRAFFIC IS CURRENTLY UNBEARABLE AND THIS CORRIDOR AS IS A SIMPLE CAR ACCIDENT ON THE TOW ROAD OR PARKWAY, TRIGGERS A LINE OF SPEEDING CARS, ONE AFTER ANOTHER OVER AND OVER TO USE HILTED HEAD AND BRIAR GROVE AS A CUT THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CANNOT HANDLE THIS AMOUNT OF UNSAFE TRAFFIC. STACKING CHAMPIONS HOSTED A SUMMER POKER EVENT LAST MONTH IN HOUSTON DRAWING 536 ENTRANTS ENTRANCE. WHERE WILL THEY ALL PARK? I'M THINKING PROBABLY IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE. AND WALK ON FOOT TO THE TOURNAMENTS PLEASE. I ASK YOU DO NOT APPROVE THE CO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS KATHY ESCHER. I LIVE AT 48 43 STONY FORD DRIVE DALLAS. I'M ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR BENT TREE NORTH AND I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH THE COMMITTEE. ALL OF US FROM BENT TREE NORTH ARE HERE BECAUSE WE FEEL PASSIONATE ABOUT OPPOSING A POKER CLUB THAT SHOULD NOT BE LOCATED AT ONE OF OUR MAIN ENTRANCES AND IS ILLEGAL VIOLATING TEXAS PENAL CODE SECTION 47.04 DISCUSSING THE OFFENSE OF KEEPING A GAMBLING PLACE CHAMPION SOCIAL CLUB, ALSO KNOWN AS CONTENDER DALLAS INTENDS TO HOST POKER GAMES AND POKER TOURNAMENTS AS CLARIFIED BY THE OWNER ROY CHOI IN HIS LETTER TO THE DALLAS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DATED OCTOBER 7TH, 2024. THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT INTENT. POKER IS PRIORITY, NOT THE RESTAURANT. THE CONTENDERS EMPLOYEES WILL LEAVE WORK AND GO HOME TO QUIET NEIGHBORHOODS WITHOUT GAMBLING AND POKER CLUBS. THEY LEAVE BEHIND THE TRAFFIC NOISE, TRASH AND GAMBLING CLIENTELE FROM THE LATE NIGHT HOURS FOR THE RESIDENTS OF BENT TREE NORTH TO ENDURE. THE EXTENSIVE SECURITY MEASURES CURRENTLY IN PLACE AT THE CHAMPIONS BUILDING SUGGEST THEY ANTICIPATE RISKS WITH THEIR ACTIVITIES IN TEXAS. WE HAVE THREE THINGS THAT ARE PATENTLY ILLEGAL SEX TRAFFICKING, DRUGS, AND GAMBLING. THERE ARE NO TEXAS COURTS OR JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE RULED POKER CLUBS TO BE LEGAL. PLEASE UPHOLD THE LAWS OF TEXAS AND DENY THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO CONTENDER DALLAS. PLEASE KEEP US SAFE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH MS. WILLIAMS. WILL YOU HOLD ONE SECOND, SIR? UH, IF YOU'D CALL THE NEXT FIVE SPEAKERS. JOHN MALVIN, STEVEN CARLL, RASHMI MAUR, NANCY BURMA, MIKE HIGGINS. YOU MAY PROCEED. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON. UM, THANK YOU FOR UH, THE BOARD FOR HEARING US, UH, AGAIN TODAY. UH, MY NAME IS DAVID WALTER. I LIVE AT 5 5 3 1 TAMRON COURT IN THE VENTRY NORTH, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD. AS SEVERAL, [01:00:01] UH, PEOPLE, UH, JUST UH, RECENTLY IN THE LAST, UH, COUPLE PEOPLE SAID, UH, POKER IS ILLEGAL IN TEXAS. THAT'S JUST NOT AN OPINION THAT WE HAVE. THAT'S THE OPINION OF HOUSTON, OPINION OF COLLIN COUNTY, DENTON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF DALLAS. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, UH, MADDOX AND ABBOTT IN 1990 AND 2005 ALSO VOICED AND WROTE THAT OPINION. THE AMICUS BRIEF, UH, FROM HOUSTON, UH, DATED UH, IN 2024, UH, INCLUDES A LOT OF INFORMATION, BUT THE MAIN PART OF IT IS THAT CRIME HAS INCREASED IN HOUSTON AS, UH, WAS PREVIOUSLY UM, PRESENTED. AND AS RECENTLY AS LAST MONTH, AN INDIVIDUAL WON MONEY AT SOME LOCATION, I DON'T KNOW WHICH, UH, WENT TO THEIR HOTEL AND WERE, UM, BEATEN AND ROBBED RIGHT IN THEIR RIGHT IN THE HOTEL. SO OBVIOUSLY SOMEBODY KNEW THEY WON, THEY FOLLOWED HIM AND THERE THEY ARE. SO, UH, THE COLLIN COUNTY AMICUS BRIEF, WHICH WAS JUST MENTIONED, IT'S VERY CLEAR COLLIN COUNTY BELIEVES THAT, UH, IT'S ILLEGAL FOR GAMBLING, FOR POKER, UH, AND EVEN YOUR A DECISION IN 2021 CONCERNING CHAMPIONS TO NOT GRANT A CO. YOU WERE RIGHT THEN, AND YOU'LL BE RIGHT NOW, TO NOT GRANT A CO FOR CHAMPIONS AS LONG AS IT INCLUDES POKER AS PART OF ITS OPERATING, UH, SITUATION. SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES ARE LEGAL IN TEXAS BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF REGULATIONS AROUND WHERE THEY CAN BE NEIGHBORHOOD NOT NEAR NEIGHBORHOODS, NOT NEAR CHURCHES, SCHOOLS, WHATNOT. YOU KNOW, POKER HAS IS NOT LEGAL AND THEREFORE THERE ARE NO REGULATIONS. THEY CAN BE ANYWHERE BECAUSE THERE'S NO RULES WRITTEN AROUND THEM. YOUR TIME IS UP. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. MY NAME IS PAT ZABE AND MY WIFE AND I HAVE BEEN, UH, HOMEOWNERS AT 5 0 2 3 SEA PINES IN VENTRY NORTH FOR 33 YEARS. WE WOULD DEEPLY APPRECIATE YOUR VOLUNTARY SERVICE REPRESENTING THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF DALLAS, DESPITE THEIR EFFORTS TO PRESENT THIS AS A FINE DINING VENUE OR A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION. THE CORE BUSINESS IS GAMBLING. A REBRAND DOESN'T CHANGE THE REALITY. IT'S A POKER CLUB. EVEN THE CITY'S APRIL 15TH REVOCATION. IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT IS OPERATING AS A RESTAURANT WITHOUT A CO RAISING SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE RISK OF GRANTING THEM ONE FOR GAMBLING OPERATION. OUR POSITION REMAINS UNCHANGED. A POKER CLUB HAS NO PLACE IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD FILLED WITH CHILDREN, SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, AND HOMEOWNERS WHO CARE ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THE IMPACT IS REAL. IT RISK LOWERING PROPERTY VALUES AND DISRUPTING THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE URGE YOU TO STAND BY YOUR PRIOR DECISION AND DENY THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. UH, BOARD AND CHAIRMAN. MY NAME IS JOE ALLEN. MY ADDRESS IS 17 5 20 RIVER HILL DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS, WHICH IS LESS THAN 200 FEET FROM THE PROPOSED ILLEGAL GAMBLING LOCATION. I'VE LIVED AT THAT ADDRESS FOR 16 YEARS. I'VE BEEN ON THE, UH, BEN TREE NORTH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR NINE YEARS. EIGHT OF THAT IS THE SECURITY CHAIR. I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE APPEAL FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE O FOR THE PROPERTY AT 7 1 7 7 7 6 DALLAS PARKWAY. CONTENDERS, LLC PREVIOUSLY STATED AND CONTINUES TO INDICATE THEIR PLAN IS TO OPERATE A POKER CLUB INVOLVED ILLEGAL GAMBLING. THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY IS. THE POKER CLUB. THEY'RE MAKING MONEY OFF POKER THEY WOULDN'T BE DOING DOING OTHERWISE. I BELIEVE THE CLUB POKER CLUB OPERATING ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN 200 FEET OF MY HOUSE NEXT TO A CROSSWALK USED BY PEDESTRIANS. BICYCLISTS, INCLUDING CHILDREN GOING TO AND FROM SCHOOL, CREATES A DANGEROUS SITUATION. THERE'S A STRONG POSITION POTENTIAL FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH GAMBLING BEING HOSTED AT THAT LOCATION. IN ADDITION, LARGE POKER TOURNAMENTS CREATE THE POTENTIAL FOR HEAVY TRAFFIC THROUGH AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SPILL OVER PARKING. WE USED TO [01:05:01] WALK TO THREE FORKS. IT'S ONLY A HALF A BLOCK. I MEAN, IF YOU GET A BIG POKER TOURNAMENT, YOU THINK THEY WON'T BE PARKING ON OUR STREETS. APPRECIATE THE ABILITY, UH, THE UH, OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HELLO, MY NAME IS JOHN MULVEY. I AM AT 4 5 3 6 BANYAN LANE IN BEN TREE NORTH. I'M ALSO THE, UH, SENIOR WARDEN AT CHURCH OF THE HOLY COMMUNION, WHICH IS LOCATED WITHIN BEN TREE NORTH. UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU MADE A STATEMENT THAT YOU JUDGE IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS AND ON ITS MERIT. CORRECT. IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING? SO THAT'S THE CITY CODE, RIGHT? SO I WOULD HOPE THAT, OR ASSUME THAT YOU WON'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THESE OTHER CASES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE YOU TO TALK ABOUT THIS IS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE SIZE OF THIS, YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SEE VERY WELL, BUT THIS IS OUR SUBDIVISION, UH, AT VENTRY NORTH. THIS IS NOW NORTH DALLAS TOLLWAY, THIS BIG YELLOW LINE. THERE ARE TWO, UH, EXIT RAMPS OFF OF THE TOLLWAY JUST SOUTH OF CHAMPIONS AND JUST NORTH OF CHAMPIONS. ON ANY GIVEN RUSH HOUR DAY, THIS, UH, DALLAS PARKWAY UP TO FRANKFURT CAN BE OVER A MILE LONG. THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC. SO IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHAMPIONS AND WE'RE KEEP TALKING ABOUT POKER CLUBS AND I, I'M NOT HORRIBLY OPPOSED TO THAT, BUT WHAT I AM OPPOSED TO IS GIGANTIC VENUE OF, UH, TOURNAMENTS WHERE THERE HAVE, ACCORDING TO ALL THE INTERNET, YOU READ 3, 4, 500 PEOPLE AT A BIG TOURNAMENT. WELL, IF THIS IS THE PREMIER POKER CLUB, YOU CAN BET THEY'RE GONNA BE BIG TIME TOURNAMENTS. SO WHEN THE TOURNAMENT'S OVER, LET'S SAY AT TWO IN THE MORNING, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE 3, 4, 500 PEOPLE TRYING TO EXIT OUT OF THIS, UM, OUTTA THEIR PARKING LOT ONTO DALLAS PARKWAY TO TURN ON FRANKFURT. A LOT OF 'EM GOING EAST. WELL, WHAT WE KNOW AS HOMEOWNERS IN THE ASSOCIATION, THE WAY TO AVOID THIS IS YOU GO BACK THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION. 'CAUSE THERE ARE ONLY FOUR EXIT POINTS OUT OF THIS SHOPPING. I MEAN, OUT OF OUR, UH, UM, SUBDIVISION AND ONLY TWO LIGHTS. SO THERE'S A LIGHT HERE, BUT THERE'S ALSO A LIGHT HERE. ONE MILE DOWN IN FRANKFURT TO GO EAST. THAT'S WHERE THE CUT THROUGH WILL BE. YOUR TIME IS UP. OKAY, I I'M GONNA GIVE YOU AN EXTRA THING. FINISH YOUR THOUGHT. THANK YOU. JUST REAL QUICK, OUR STREETS ARE 25 FEET WIDE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF BRIAR GROVE, WHICH IS THE MAIN ROAD. YOU PARK TWO PICKUPS SIDE ACROSS FROM EACH OTHER. YOU HAVE 10 FEET BETWEEN THERE. YOU TAKE A A, UH, AS I HAVE A PICTURE HERE, A COMPACT CAR. YOU HAVE TWO FEET, YOU RUN A PICKUP THROUGH THERE WITH MIRRORS. YOU GOT INCHES ON EITHER SIDE. NOW THEY'RE GOING DOWN AT NIGHT GOING THROUGH THERE. THAT'S, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A RECIPE FOR DISASTER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. WOULD YOU LEAVE THAT, THAT, UH, DISPLAY? I'LL BE HAPPY TO DISPLAY OVER HERE WITH OUR BOARD SECRETARY. I'LL BE HAPPY. I MAY WANNA REFER TO IT LATER. I'LL BE HAPPY. I DON'T NEED, THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU COUNSEL. MY NAME IS STEVEN CARROLL. I RESIDE AT 49 31 SANDESTIN DRIVE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR CITY. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE. I'M A FULL-TIME PASTOR IN DALLAS AND A PROUD RESIDENT OF THE BEN TREE NORTH, UH, SUBDIVISION FOR OVER 14 YEARS. I'M DEEPLY TROUBLED BY THE PROPOSITION OF A GAMING AND GAMBLING ESTABLISHMENT AT THE ENTRANCE OF OUR BELOVED NEIGHBORHOOD. MY THOUGHTS AND OBJECTIONS ARE MANY, BUT I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE JUST THESE FEW. FIRST, THE CONCERN AND DANGER IS REAL AND PERSONAL FOR ME. FOR 45 YEARS, I'VE COUNSELED INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES BROKEN BY GAMBLING AND GAMING ADDICTIONS, APPROVING A BUSINESS THAT PROFITS FROM THAT PAIN WOULD BE IN MY VIEW, UNCONSCIONABLE TEXAS LAW REFLECTS THOSE CONCERNS AND I BELIEVE YOUR DECISION SHOULD ALIGN WITH THAT PRUDENCE. NEXT, IT ENDANGERS THE SAFETY AND PEACE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. ONLY A SINGLE NEIGHBORHOOD FENCE WOULD SEPARATE THIS OPERATION AND ESTABLISHMENT FROM HOMES WITH CHILDREN, RETIREES, AND FAMILIES. FACILITIES LIKE THIS INVITE CRIME SUCH AS JUGGING, THEFT, LOITERING, TRAFFICKING, AND SOLICITATION FROM PEOPLE CHASING QUICK CASH, NOT TO MENTION EXACERBATING THE ONGOING HOMELESSNESS AND LOITERING THAT WE'RE ALREADY SUFFERING WITH. LASTLY, IT DAMAGES OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S IDENTITY AND VALUE. YOU MUST DRIVE WITHIN 50 FEET PAST THIS SITE TO ENTER OUR COMMUNITY FLOODLIGHTS 24 HOUR SECURITY AND THE TRAFFIC THAT FOLLOWS WILL DETER [01:10:01] BUYERS AND DEPRESSED PROPERTY VALUES. MANY OF US SPENT YEARS BUILDING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. IF OWNERS CAN FUND GUARDS AND CAMERAS AND RENOVATIONS, THEY CAN LOCATE IN NON-RESIDENTIAL AREAS. IN CLOSING, I ASK THAT YOU NOT ONLY CONSIDER YOUR CURRENT RESIDENCE, BUT FUTURE ONES AS WELL. WOULD YOU BUY A HOME WHERE THIS FACILITY IS YOUR FIRST IMPRESSION? WOULD YOU ASK YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN TO WALK BY OR BIKE BY IT AT ANY TIME DURING THE DAY? IS THIS, UH, IF THIS SAT ON YOUR FENCE LINE NEXT TO YOUR FAMILY, WOULD YOU FEEL COMPLETELY SECURE AT ALL HOURS? IF ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS EVEN BRING A MOMENT'S HESITATION, I URGE THE BOARD TO VOTE NO, TO PROTECT AND TO PRESERVE THE PRESENT, THE FUTURE OF BENT TREE NORTH. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE MY, HOLD ON ONE SECOND PLEASE. UH, MS. WILLIAMS, IF YOU'D CALL THE NEXT FIVE, STEWART SMA, PATRICIA ANO, TOM DUPRE, SUSAN DEWI, AND SUSAN WITHROW. OKAY, YOU MAY PROCEED. MY NAME IS NANCY BERGSMA. I LIVE IN VENTRY, NORTH OF 50 15 BELLA REEF DRIVE. WE'VE LIVED THERE FOR ALMOST FIVE YEARS. THIS IS MY THIRD TIME COMING DOWN TO CITY HALL TO PROTEST CHAMPIONS POKER HOUSE SLASH CONTENDERS. THE LATEST GLITCH. CHAMPIONS MEAN BEING GIVEN A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND THEN HAVING IT REVOKED WHEN THE PEOPLE OF CITY HALL REALIZED SHOULD THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE APPROVED A POKER HOUSE, GIVING CHAMPIONS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL. THIS SURE MAKES IT SEEM LIKE THERE'S A BIG PROBLEM AT CITY HALL. I WOULD SAY SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN DENMARK, BUT WE'RE IN DALLAS, NOT IN A SHAKESPEARE PLAY. CHAMPIONS IS ON THE EDGE OF OUR SUBDIVISION. WE DRIVE PAST IT SEVERAL TIMES A A DAY. I AM CONCERNED FOR THE INCREASED TRAFFIC, THE POTENTIAL FOR CRIME THAT IT COULD BRING INTO OUR SUB. MY GRANDCHILDREN LIVE IN THIS SUB. THEY GO PAST THAT INTERSECTION AT LEAST TWICE A DAY TO GET TO THEIR SCHOOL. WE HAVE A SCHOOL CHURCH CEMETERY AND OVER 600 HOMES IN OUR SUBDIVISION, AND AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JUST PASSED THE TOLLWAY ON BRIAR GROVE. MY GRANDCHILDREN AND THEIR FRIENDS WALK AND BIKE IN THEIR, IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. MY HUSBAND AND I DO TOO. WHY ARE WE STILL DISCUSSING THIS? PLEASE VOTE NO AND STOP ILLEGAL ACTIVITY FROM HAVING A HOME AT THE EDGE OF OUR SUBDIVISION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, GOOD MORNING. UH, MY NAME IS MIKE HIGGINS. I LIVE AT 49 28 SEA PINES DRIVE HERE WITH MY WIFE. UH, KAREN. UH, WE BOUGHT THAT HOME IN 1986 AND, UH, THERE WAS NOT A GAMBLING CLUB IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, WHEN WE DID THAT. UH, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT, UH, THE WONDERFUL EMPLOYER THE CHAMPION IS AND HOW THEY TAKE CARE OF THEIR PEOPLE AND HOW WELL THEY RUN A GOOD RESTAURANT. AND THAT'S GREAT. WE WELCOME A RESTAURANT, UH, IN OUR AREA. UH, NOT A GAMBLING CLUB. GAMBLING IS ILLEGAL IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND, UH, THAT LAW SHOULD BE, UH, UPHELD. UH, IT ALSO WAS MENTIONED THAT THEY'VE INVESTED $15 MILLION, WHICH IS CLEARLY A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY. UH, THE NEIGHBORS, UH, IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, HAVE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 750 AND $850 MILLION INVESTED IN THEIR HOMES. SO IT'S LESS THAN ONE AND A HALF PERCENT WE PUT AT RISK BY APPROVING THIS, UH, I URGE YOU TO VOTE AGAINST, UH, THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME FOR YOUR SERVICE. THANK YOU, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE SO WE CAN HEAR YOU. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. AND, UH, THE DEFENSE OF THE POKER, UH, CLUB HAS CONTINUOUSLY CLAIMED THAT WE HAVE USED OUR INFLUENCE TO TELL THE CITY WHAT TO DO. UM, I'M SHOWING A CHART HERE. IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A, I I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SAY. YOU NEED TO GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FIRST. OH, I'M SO SORRY. MY NAME IS RASHMI MATHUR AND I RESIDE AT 4 8 0 8 LARRIE DRIVE. AND I, I AM A MEMBER OF THE, UH, RY NORTH HOA. UM, [01:15:01] SO THE, THE DEFENSE HAS CONTINUALLY CLAIMED THAT THEY HAVE, WE ARE USING OUR INFLUENCE TO TELL THE CITY WHAT TO DO. I WANNA JUST HIGHLIGHT A CHART HERE, WHICH SHOWS THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS DONATED TO TEXAS POLITICIANS BY ROY CHOI. THOSE ARE HIGHLIGHTED NUMBERS OUT THERE AVAILABLE PUBLICLY. AND WE ALSO KNOW THAT HE HAS SPENT A LOT OF MONEY IN THE RECENT C UH, CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS, THOUGH NEITHER OF THEM RESIDE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. NO SINGLE INDIVIDUAL FROM THE RY NORTH HAS SENT THIS, UH, A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR ANY POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS OR, UM, OR, UH, OR CITY COUNCIL. AND WE ARE JUST VOTERS AND WE GET OUR VOICES HEARD LIKE WE ARE DOING SO TODAY. IF THIS REALLY REPRESENTS THE BEST OF THE WORST, WE REALLY ASK THIS PANEL NOT TO GRANT THE, UH, CHAMPIONS A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. DOING SO WOULD CREATE A FIRESTORM AND SET A PRECEDENCE OF OTHER POKER CLUBS SPROUTING ALL OVER THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND CAUSING CRIME CENTERS THAT WE ARE WELL AWARE DATA HAS SHOWN THEM TO, UM, UH, EXIST. SO PLEASE CONSIDER THIS ISSUE TO BE MORE THAN, UH, MORE THAN DALLAS, AND IT SHOULD BE ACTUALLY TRIED IN, IN A DISTRICT COURT, NOT, NOT, UH, IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINIONS. THAT IS MY OPINION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, TOM DUPRE, 51 32 BELL RIE DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS. UM, SO I WAS GOING TO SPEAK TODAY ON HOW TCH AND CHAMPIONS HAS MISLED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO BE ABLE TO BEGIN OPERATIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT INSTEAD THOUGHT OF MORE PRUDENT EMPHASIZE THAT THE APPEALS COURT DID NOT OVERRIDE THE MOER DECISION. UH, NOWHERE DOES IT SAY IN THE APPEALS COURT THAT THEY, THEY CHALLENGED THE MOEY DECISION AND I CHALLENGED THE CHAMPION'S ATTORNEY TO SHOW WHERE THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS CHALLENGED THE MOEY DECISION. UM, AND I WOULD ALSO, UH, LIKE THEM TO EXPLAIN WHERE THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT SAID THAT POKER IS LEGAL. IF CHAMPIONS IS PERMITTED TO OPERATE AS A POKER CLUB, THAT'LL OPEN THE DOOR FOR AT LEAST 15 TO 20 MORE TO BE OPENED BY YEAR END. AND IF CHAMPIONS IS THE BEST OF THE WORST FOR, FOR POKER CLUBS, UM, MANY OF THESE OTHER FACILITIES THAT'LL BE OPENING WILL BE THE WORST OF THE WORST AND WILL BE BESIEGED LIKE THE CITY OF HOUSTON WAS. SO I ASKED THIS PANEL TO UPHOLD THE CITY REVOKING THE CEO AND LET THIS MATTER SETTLE IN DISTRICT COURT. UH, AS OF YESTERDAY, CHAMPIONS DID FILE TO HAVE THE, UH, THE STATE, UH, SUIT THAT WAS IN, UH, DISTRICT COURT 1 93 REMOVED AND PROCEED WITH THAT COURT. SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE THIS AS AN ATTACHMENT, IT'S FRESH FROM YESTERDAY, YOU'RE, YOU'RE HAPPY TO HAVE IT. BUT, UH, UH, I ASKED THIS PANEL TO UPHOLD THE CITY REVOKING THE CEO AND LET THE MATTER BE SETTLED IN DISTRICT COURT 1 93. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HELLO, I'M STU BERGSMA. I LIVE AT 5 0 1 5 BALL IN THE AFFECTED NEIGHBORHOOD. I AM CERTAIN YOU'RE AWARE THAT, UH, THE ACTIVITY PROPOSED BY THE POKER HOUSE IS ILLEGAL. I REFER YOU TO PENAL CODE 47 0 4 AND 47 0 1. FURTHER REFERENCE TO REFERENCE ATTORNEY GENERAL MADDOX AND ABBOTT OPINIONS DEFINE THIS ACTIVITY AS ILLEGAL. COLLIN COUNTY, OUR OWN COUNTY HERE HAS FILED AMERICA'S BRIEF SUPPORTING THE FACT THAT GAMBLING AND POKER HOUSES ARE NOT LEGAL IN TEXAS. YET HERE WE ARE PROPOSING AN OVERRIDE OF TEXAS LAW, TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL LEGAL OPINION, AND OUR OWN COLLIN COUNTY CERTIFYING THIS AS ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. UM, APPROVAL OF THIS PROPOSAL PLACES A GAMBLING HOUSE AT THE ENTRANCE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THREATENING SAFETY AND PROPERTY WITH THE UNSAVORY ACTIVITIES, ALL WELL-KNOWN AND DOCUMENTED TO FOLLOW GAMBLING INSTITUTIONS. IT PLACES ILLEGAL GAMBLING IN THE DIRECT VICINITY OF A CHURCH IN AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. I, I SUBMIT THAT EVEN NEVADA WOULD NEVER APPROVE SUCH A LOCATION IF ALLOWED. THIS VIOLATES OUR CIVIC TRUST TO SAY THE LEAST, AND IT WOULD BE IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH OVERRIDING STATE LAW. GAMBLING [01:20:01] TOO COMES WITH A HUGE SOCIAL COST. PROPERTY VALUES DROP ERODING OF THE TAX BASE, CRIME, ALCOHOL ABUSE, PROSTITUTION, ADDICTIONS INCREASE, REQUIRING MORE POLICE ACTION. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A GAMBLING COMMISSION WHICH NEEDS TO BE IN PLACE. IF THIS WERE TO BE ESTABLISHED FOR CONTINUAL OVERSIGHT. UM, TRAFFIC AND PARKING. PARKING IN THE COMMOTION CREATED IN THE DISRUPTION PRIOR TO A PEACEFUL NEIGHBORHOOD, SAFETY ANDS AND SECURITY ARE SEVERELY COMPROMISED. ALL THIS TO SAY WHY, WHY ARE WE HERE? ONCE AGAIN, IT IS ILLEGAL. UM, THE CHAMPION POKER HOUSE BY ANY NAME MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED TO RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR ITS PLANNED ILLEGAL GAMING ACTIVITY. YOUR TIME IS UP. THANK YOU SIR. AND IF YOU'D COME FORWARD AND JUST HOLD FOR ONE SECOND, LET ME CALL THE NEXT FIVE. MS. WILLIAMS, EMILY PAUL, CATHERINE BERNSTEIN, TRACY MCCUTCHEN, ERNEST, JANET, SUE HOLLAND. YOU MAY PROCEED. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS PATRICIA CAGIANO. I RESIDE AT 49 0 8 BEL RIE DRIVE. I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 38 YEARS AND I'VE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF WATCHING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD GROW AND DEVELOP AND JUST BE STABLE AND BEAUTIFUL AND HOME TO SO MANY FAMILIES. I APPEAL TO YOU TO DENY THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON THE BASIS OF HOMEOWNER TO HOMEOWNER. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT CHAMPIONS IS A STATE OF THE ART ESTABLISHMENT. HOWEVER, THE LOCATION AND THE PROXIMITY TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS WRONG. IT JUST DOES NOT BELONG ADJACENT TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MM-HMM . I'M SUSAN DEUTSCH AND I'VE LIVED IN BENARY NORTH TWO SEPARATE TIMES FOR A TOTAL OF 23 YEARS. MY ADDRESS IS 48 35 STONY FORD DRIVE. I AM THE MOTHER OF TWO CHILDREN AND TWO GRANDCHILDREN WHO LIVE IN DALLAS AND ARE AT MY HOUSE OFTEN, INCLUDING OVERNIGHT. IT IS SCARING ME THAT A GAMBLING OPERATION COULD BE LOCATED RIGHT AT THE ENTRANCE OF OUR QUIET, BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOOD. WAS AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JUST DOWN THE STREET AND A CHURCH WITHIN A FEW BLOCKS OF THE LOCATION. WE RESIDENTS TREASURER OUR PEACEFUL AND COHESIVE COMMUNITY. I'M AFRAID THIS PLAN TO ALLOW GAMBLING WOULD LEAD TO MORE NOISE, TRAFFIC AND CRIME IN OUR STREETS 24 7. I KNOW THAT CHAMPIONS PLEDGES TO CONTROL THESE PROBLEMS, BUT DOESN'T THAT ATTEST TO THE THREAT OF THEM HAPPENING AS A RESULT OF THEIR BUSINESS? WE COULD ALSO SEE OUR PROPERTY VALUES DROP AND OUR HOMES BECOME HARDER TO SELL. THIS IS A TERRIBLE LOCATION FOR A GAMBLING ESTABLISHMENT. PLEASE DON'T ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN TO OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M SUSAN WITHROW AND I OPPOSE THE OPENING OF THE POKER ROOM. I LIVE AT 51 24 SPYGLASS. DRIVE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE SO WE CAN HEAR YOU. OKAY. I LIVE AT 51 24 SPYGLASS DRIVE IN VENTRY NORTH, WHICH IS DIRECTLY BEHIND THE CHAMPIONS LOCATION AND I'VE LIVED THERE FOR THE LAST 32 YEARS. I'M ALSO A LOCAL REAL ESTATE AGENT SPECIALIZING IN THE BEN TREE AREA FOR THE LAST 23 YEARS. MOST OF THE HOMES THAT I SELL ARE BOUGHT BY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN. I THINK HAVING A BUSINESS THAT ALLOWS POKER WILL HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON OUR REAL ESTATE MARKET. WE WILL HAVE INCREASED CRIME AND TR CRIME AND TRAFFIC AND I THINK BUYERS WILL BE MUCH LESS INCLINED TO PURCHASE A HOME SO CLOSE TO A BUSINESS THAT PROMOTES GAMBLING FOR ALMOST THE WHOLE TIME I'VE LIVED IN BEN TREE NORTH. I'VE, UM, WHENEVER PEOPLE ASK ME WHERE I LIVE, I'VE SAID WE LIVE BEHIND THREE FORKS BECAUSE IT WAS A LANDMARK AND I WAS PROUD OF THAT. IT WAS A REALLY NICE RESTAURANT. I JUST CAN'T IMAGINE NOW HAVING TO TELL PEOPLE THAT I LIVE DIRECTLY BEHIND THE POKER ROOM. THANKS. [01:25:01] THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. HI, MY NAME IS EMILY PAUL. I LIVE AT 51 36 QUAIL LAKE DRIVE. THIS IS MY FOURTH GRADE DAUGHTER WHO ALSO LIVES AT 51 36 QUILL LAKE DRIVE AND ATTENDS THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THAT IS JUST DOWN THE STREET FROM THE PROPOSED POKER ESTABLISHMENT. I AM OPPOSED TO THE POKER ROOM AND I HAVE SOME REMARKS. SO HOUSTON IS CONSIDERED THE EPICENTER OF POKER IN TEXAS AND THE POKER COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE TO DO THE SAME IN DALLAS BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL. THE CITY OF HOUSTON FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT TO SUPPORT THE CITY OF DALLAS' CONTENTION THAT POKER CLUBS ARE ILLEGAL. THEY BASED THEIR ARGUMENT ON THE SECTION 47 0 2 OF THE PENAL CODE THAT CRIMINALIZES PLAYING POKER FOR MONEY OR ANYTHING OF VALUE AND PENAL CODE ON KEEPING A GAMBLING PLACE. THEY ALSO STATED THAT NONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS OR DEFENSES TO THE, TO THESE PROVISIONS APPLY TO THE POKER CLUBS IN HOUSTON OR TCH. SPECIFICALLY, THEY CITED WITH MOYE ON BOTH A PRIVATE PLACE AND RECEIVING ECONOMIC BENEFITS. HOUSTON ALSO MENTIONED THE STRAIN ON POLICE RESOURCES AND THAT HOUSTON EXTE EXPENDS VALUABLE RESOURCES, TIME AND ENERGY TO PREVENT THE INFLUX OF CRIME FROM THESE ESTABLISHMENTS. PLEASE DENY THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. OUR SAFETY IS IMPORTANT. MY DAUGHTER, WE ARE IN AND OUTTA THAT INTERSECTION, NO FEWER THAN SIX TO 15 TIMES A DAY DEPENDING ON HOW MANY ERRANDS THAT A MOM OF THREE HAS TO MAKE ON THE WAY TO SCHOOL AND PICKUPS AND DROP OFFS AND AND JUST LIVING IN BENCH NORTH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HI, MY NAME IS CATHERINE BERNSTEIN. I'M AT 5 1 0 9 QUAIL LAKE DRIVE. I'M A RESIDENT OF VENTRY NORTH. WHEN MY HUSBAND AND I RETIRED FROM THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY IN LA FIVE YEARS AGO, WE KNEW WE COULD NOT RETIRE IN CALIFORNIA BECAUSE OF RAMPANT HOMELESSNESS AND CRIME, HIGH TAXES, PROGRESSIVE POLICIES LIKE LEGALIZED MARIJUANA AND GAMBLING. I HAVE DEEP ROOTS IN DALLAS, SO IT WAS A LOGICAL CHOICE FOR OUR RETIREMENT. MY HUSBAND PASSED AWAY A FEW WEEKS AGO BELIEVING HE LEFT ME IN A SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH STABLE PROPERTY VALUES SO I WOULD BE SECURE AFTER HIS DEATH. UNFORTUNATELY IN A LEGAL POKER ROOM AT THE ENTRANCE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD NOW THREATENS OUR SAFETY AND PROPERTY VALUES. I UNDERSTAND THAT MANY BELIEVE THAT TEXAS STATE LAW REGARDING COURT POKER ROOMS IS A GRAY AREA, BUT UNDERSTAND CONDONING POKER ROOMS IN DALLAS WILL BRING UNDESIRABLE CONSEQUENCES FOR ALL TEXAS RESIDENTS. I WOULD LIKE TO REFERENCE THE LINK ON THE KNIGHTED WEBSITE TO THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON PROBLEM GAMBLING, WHICH PROVIDES RESOURCES FOR TREATMENT OF PROBLEM GAMBLING, MUCH LIKE FEDERALLY MANDATED WARNING LABEL ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS. KNIGHTED IS VERY AWARE THAT THE SERVICES IT OFFERS CREATES ADDICTION PROBLEMS WITH RESULTING MISERY, WHICH FILTERS OUT INTO OUR FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU DENY A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR KNIGHTED CHO AND CHAMPIONS POKER CLUB. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND IF YOU WOULD HOLD ONE SECOND MA'AM, WE'RE GONNA CALL OUR NEXT FIVE SPEAKERS. IT'S LEAH JAN, SUSAN MOSS, VALERIE ANDERSON, CHRISTINE JACK, JIM GRIFFIN. YOU MAY PROCEED. HELLO, MY NAME IS SUE HOLLAND. I LIVE AT 1 7 4 1 5 PALMA VALLEY CIRCLE. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN NEWMAN FOR HAVING US TODAY. I AM, I AM AGAINST CHAMPIONS. BEN TREE NORTH IS A FABULOUS NEIGHBORHOOD. THE THE, AND YOU KNOW, I'M JUST, I'M JUST A NEIGHBOR WITH A DOG, BUT WE HAVE A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD. THE THOUGHT OF HAVING A GAMBLING FACILITY AT THE ENTRANCE, THE THOUGHT OF TRAFFIC AND CRIME AND THE ELEMENT OF FOLKS THAT WOULD BE DRIVING THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT I JUST CAN'T BEAR. SO I ASK FOR YOU TO VOTE AGAINST THE CO FOR CHAMPIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HI, MY NAME IS CANDY DNIS. I THINK YOU LISTED TRACY MCCUTCHEN TWICE. IS IT OKAY IF I GO AHEAD AND [01:30:01] SPEAK IN THAT TURN? WE'RE BOTH IN THE SAME HOUSEHOLD. UM, IS THAT OKAY? GO AHEAD. OKAY. MY NAME IS CANDY DUIS. I LIVE AT 52 0 2 HARBORTOWN DRIVE. I LIVE DIRECTLY AROUND THE CORNER FROM CHAMPIONS. RECENTLY, GREG WILLIS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR COLLIN COUNTY, SENT THIS LETTER TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. HE SAYS IN 2021, I SENT A LETTER TO THE BOARD REGARDING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO CHAMPIONS CLUB. I WROTE TO EMPHASIZE THAT GAMBLING IS ILLEGAL UNDER TEXAS LAW AND TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT MY OFFICE IS COMMITTED TO ENFORCING THIS TEXAS LAW. TEXAS LAW PROVIDES A LIMITED DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION WHERE GAMBLING OCCURS IN A PRIVATE PLACE AND NO ONE RECEIVES AN ECONOMIC BENEFIT OTHER THAN PERSONAL WEDDINGS. HE WRITES, I HAVE YET TO ENCOUNTER A POKER ROOM BUSINESS THAT WOULD QUALIFY FOR THIS DEFENSE. THE LAW WAS NOT INTENDED TO PROTECT GAMES IN A PERSON'S HOME. IT WAS NOT, I'M SORRY, EXCUSE ME. THE LAW WAS INTENDED TO PROTECT GAMES IN A PERSON'S HOME, NOT COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS OPERATING FOR PROFIT. AND 23, MY OFFICE FILED A BRIEF WITH THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS. ALTHOUGH THE ALET COURT REVERSED THE JUDGMENT ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS, IT DID NOT DISTURB THE TRIAL'S. COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT COMMERCIAL POKER ROOMS VIOLATE TEXAS GAMBLING LAWS. ONCE AGAIN, A BUSINESS IS SEEKING TO OPERATE A POKER ROOM IN COLLIN COUNTY. NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE I FIRST ADDRESSED THE BOARD IN 2021. PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THE CO. I LIVE RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER AND I APPRECIATE YOUR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY NAME IS EJ JAN. 51 16 SPYGLASS DRIVE, LIVED IN VENTRY FOR OVER 30 YEARS. AS A CPA EXPERT WITNESS IN BUSINESS LITIGATION, OFTEN I'M ASKED TO CALCULATE DAMAGES IN THE PAST, DAMAGES IN THE FUTURE. I'LL APPROACH IT THIS WAY. I HAVE TO LOOK AT THE PLUSES AND MINUSES. I ASSUME CHAMPIONS IS LOOKING FOR A PROFIT. I ASSUME THEY PROBABLY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AT A DISTRESSED VALUE. YES, THEY MADE AN INVESTMENT, BUT THAT WAS THEIR DECISION. I ASSUME THESE EMPLOYEES ARE PAID TO BE HERE. WE ARE NOT. WE'RE VOLUNTEERS. WE'RE HERE COMING TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THOSE ARE THE PLUSES THAT I SEE FOR THEM. WHAT ARE THE MINUSES FOR THESE PEOPLE SITTING HERE? 640 RESIDENTS THAT LIVE THERE. ONE CRIME WILL GO UP, TWO POLICE ACTIVITY WILL GO UP. THREE, IT'LL INCREASE THE CITY'S COSTS. FOUR, IT WILL MORE THAN LIKELY DECLINE OUR CITY. OUR VALUES LIKELY ALSO DECLINE THE TAX VALUES TO THE CITY. WHEN A POKER GAME GOES ON, THERE'S ONE WINNER, FIVE OR SIX LOSERS, THOSE LOSERS WITH ALCOHOL AND EVERYTHING ELSE WILL HAVE RAGE. WE'VE SEEN THAT IN THE STA STATISTIC THAT STEVE AND VIVIAN SHARED. I WILL SHARE THAT. I DON'T WANT THAT RAGE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. HOPEFULLY YOU WILL SEE THAT THE 640 PEOPLE LIVING IN OUR SUBDIVISION, THE 13 OR 1100 HAVE SIGNED THIS PETITION, ARE STRONGLY AGAINST THIS. I JUST HOPE CHAIRMAN NEWMAN, AS YOU SAID, YOU THE BOARD ARE INDEMNIFIED BY THE CITY WHO'S GONNA INDEMNIFY US AS SHAREHOLDERS. CHAMPIONS SURELY WON'T FROM PERSONAL CRIME, VANDALISM, HOPEFULLY NO PERSONAL INJURY, HOPEFULLY NO DEATH. I STRONGLY OPPOSE CHAMPIONS HAVING A ALLELE POKER FACILITY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN FRONT OF IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HI, MY NAME IS SUSAN MOSS. I LIVE AT 49 15 STONY FORD DRIVE. I'VE LIVED IN BEN TREE NORTH FOR OVER 30 YEARS. WE HAVE A CHURCH, PRESCHOOL AND CEMETERY IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WITHIN A HALF A MILE. THERE ARE THREE ENTRANCES TO CHAMPIONS, TWO ON THE DALLAS PARKWAY AND THE OTHER A CUT THROUGH ON BRIAR GROVE, ONE OF THE MAJOR ENTRANCES TO THE BEN TREE NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE ARE FOUR ENTRANCES TO BEN TREE NORTH, TWO OFF THE TOLLWAY, ONE OF WHICH IS THE CUT THROUGH AND TWO OFF FRANKFURT. WHEN LOOKING AT GOOGLE MAPS, PEOPLE COMING FROM THE NORTH OR EAST ARE DIRECTED TO DRIVE THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ON SPY GLASS DRIVE. PEOPLE TRAVELING FROM THE WEST ARE DIRECTED TO THE CUT THROUGH ON BRIAR GROVE. ONLY PEOPLE COMING FROM THE SOUTH ARE [01:35:01] DIRECTED TO THE CHAMPION'S ENTRANCES ON THE DALLAS PARKWAY. ALSO CONCERNING IS THE TRAFFIC DEPARTING CHAMPIONS FOR MANY YEARS. I GET STOPPED. I'M A WALKER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I GET STOPPED BECAUSE PEOPLE GET IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET OUT. I'M CONCERNED FOR MY NEIGHBORS, THEIR CHILDREN, AND OUR COMMUNITY. OTHERS HAVE EXPRESSED ALL OUR CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO ZONING, CRIME, TRAFFIC, DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. DRIVERS PARKING A POKER ROOM DOES NOT BELONG IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I STRONGLY OPPOSE ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO CHAMPIONS. IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY VISITED BEN TREE NORTH, I URGE YOU TO COME BY AND DRIVE THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS YOU CONSIDER THIS MATTER, THINK ABOUT WHETHER YOU WOULD WANT THIS ACTIVITY HAPPENING AT THE EDGES OF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING AND FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HELLO, MY NAME IS VALERIE ANDERSON. HOLD ON, HOLD ON ONE SECOND. LUCKY YOU. WE'RE GONNA LOAD IN BEHIND YOU. OKAY. JUST ONE SECOND. MS. WILLIAMS, WOULD YOU GO AHEAD AND CALL THE NEXT FIVE? JIM GRIFFIN, STEVEN CARLL, VERONICA THOMAS CANDY DE PTI. CHERYL GORE? MM-HMM . OKAY. UH, AT THE END OF THIS WE WILL GO BACK TO ASK IF ANYONE THAT WANTED TO SPEAK DIDN'T SPEAK, BUT WE'RE GONNA KEEP GOING, SO GO AHEAD. OKAY. MY NAME IS VALERIE ANDERSON. I LIVE AT 55 26 TAMARA COURT IN DALLAS, TEXAS. GAMBLING IS ILLEGAL. THREE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERALS HAVE WRITTEN OPINIONS ON GAMING LAWS. BEGINNING WITH WILL WILSON, WHEN HE WENT AFTER THE INFAMOUS GALVESTON BIES BALLROOM. JAY STEWART, AN AUSTIN ATTORNEY WHO SPECIALIZES IN GAMING AND CONSULTS WITH THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL QUOTES ATTORNEY GENERAL GREG ABBOTT SAYING THE FACT THAT A THIRD PARTY MAKES MONEY THROUGH FEES AND DUES IS THE KEY THAT MAKES THESE ILLEGAL. THE LACK OF A RAKE IS INSUFFICIENT. ABBOTT ALSO SAYS ANY AMOUNT OF CHANCE IS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE IT CONSTITUTE AS GAMBLING. NOT 51% OR SOME CHANCE, ANY AMOUNT OF CHANCE. ATTORNEY GENERAL JIM MADDOX PROVIDED A GOOD DISCUSSION ON WHY GAMBLING, INCLUDING POKER IS PROHIBITED BY THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION AND THAT AN AMENDMENT WOULD BE NEEDED TO ALLOW IT. THIS IS WHY THIS MOTION NEEDS TO BE TRIED IN THE COURT OF THE 193RD DISTRICT, NOT IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION. PLEASE, I DISCOURAGE THAT YOU GRANT THE CO FOR CHAMPIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HI, MY NAME IS CHRISTINE JACK. I LIVE AT 47 24 RIVER HILL CIRCLE. MY PERSPECTIVE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. I GREW UP IN NORTH DALLAS AND MOVED TO CHICAGO SHORTLY AFTER GRADUATION FROM COLLEGE. I LIVED THERE FOR OVER 30 YEARS. MY HUSBAND AND I RECENTLY MOVED BACK TO DALLAS FIVE YEARS AGO. ALLOWING POKER IN A NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING WILL BRING INCREASED STREET TRAFFIC, NOISE AND UNSAFE INCIDENTS FOR ITS RESIDENTS WHILE LIVING IN ONE OF THE BEST NEIGHBORHOODS IN CHICAGO. LINCOLN PARK, A LARGE DORM WAS BUILT DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM OUR HOUSE. PEOPLE PEED IN OUR YARD. GRAFFITI WAS WRITTEN ON THE GARAGE DOORS AND BRICK WALLS. FIGHTS OCCURRED IN OUR DRIVEWAY ON THE STREET AND IN THE ALLEYS. VISIBLE DRUG TRADES TOOK PLACE IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE. PEOPLE WERE OFTEN FOUND SLEEPING AT OFF IN THEIR CARS ON OUR STREET. THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. IF A POKER HALL IS ALLOWED TO OPEN, SIMILAR BEHAVIOR WILL RESULT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR ISN'T CAUGHT BY THE HIGH POWERED CAMERAS OR HEAVY DUTY SECURITY TEAMS. MANY YOUNG FAMILIES LIVE IN BEN TREE NORTH. THEY RIDE THEIR BIKES, WALK THEIR DOGS AND PLAY OUTSIDE. SO SIMILAR TO THE NORTH DALLAS NEIGHBORHOOD. I GREW UP IN THE SEVENTIES AND EIGHTIES. VENTRY NORTH IS PEACEFUL AND BEAUTIFUL. LET'S KEEP IT THAT WAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF YOU COME FORWARD AND HOLD ONE SECOND, MS. WILLIAMS, THE NEXT FIVE. TARA CAREY, LESLIE DELAL, MARGARET RAZOR, RAJ NAN, GINA O'BRIEN, [01:40:24] YOU MAY PROCEED. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS LEAH JANNIK. I RESIDE AT 5 1 1 6 SPYGLASS DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS AND HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT IN VENTRY NORTH FOR 30 YEARS. PLUS, I AM OPPOSED TO THIS C CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY. AND I SIMPLY ASK THE BOARD ALL OF YOU THAT ARE CONSIDERING THIS FOR US TODAY, IF THIS WAS PRESENTED TO YOU AS AN ESTABLISHMENT AT THE FRONT ENTRANCE OF YOUR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS, I'M NOT CERTAIN HOW YOU WOULD RESPOND TO IT, BUT IT IS BEING PUSHED UPON US IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT IS THOUGH THEY HAVE ALREADY GOT IT DEVELOPED AND THEY'VE DONE A BEAUTIFUL JOB, BUT THEY WENT FORWARD WITH IT NOT HAVING BEEN APPROVED. AND THEY KNEW THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS BEING PUSHED INTO THIS GAMBLING ENVIRONMENT UPON OUR LIVES OF OUR CHILDREN, OUR GRANDCHILDREN, OUR FAMILIES, OUR FRIENDS, OUR SCHOOLS, AND OUR PLACE OF WORSHIP. AND ALL OF THIS, UH, ALL OF THIS THAT IS PRESENT IS REGARDING THAT. THERE COULD BE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC, ADDITIONAL ACCIDENTS, ADDITIONAL CRIME AND ADDITIONAL SAFETY. IS THIS SOMETHING YOU WOULD WANT IN THE PRESENCE OF YOUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD? AND AND IT IS TRULY A WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD AND I KNOW EACH OF US HAS INVESTED A LOT OF TIME AND OUR EFFORTS AND OUR MONEY INTO MAKING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AS BEST AS POSSIBLE. I AM ASKING THE BOARD, UM, TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT AND JUST AND FAIR IN THE EYES OF TAXPAYERS IN DALLAS CONTENDERS LAST TIME OR CHAMPIONS OR KNIGHTED HAD A VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES HERE TO REPRESENT THEM. I KNOW THEY DO HAVE SOME HERE TODAY AND OTHERS THAT WANT THIS REALLY BAD, BUT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WANT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. CERTAINLY THERE HAS TO BE ANOTHER PLACE FOR IT. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND UM, APPRECIATE YOU LISTENING TO ALL OF OUR GRIEVANCES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON AND THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY. UM, MY NAME IS VERONICA THOMAS. I LIVE AT 51 0 4 BEL RIE DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS. UM, I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. I THINK THERE ARE THREE POINTS THAT SUPPORT THAT CHAMPIONS POKER HOUSE IS IN VIOLATION OF TEXAS PENAL CODE CHAPTER 47. FIRSTLY, SUBSTANCE OVER FORM. CHARGING MEMBERSHIP FEES INSTEAD OF TAKING A RAKE IS A MEANINGLESS TECHNICAL DISTINCTION. COURTS LOOK PAST SUCH GIMMICKS TO EXAMINE ACTUAL BUSINESS MODELS. CHAMPIONS EXIST SOLELY TO PROFIT FROM GAMBLING. SECONDLY, IN TERMS OF PRIVATE CLUB PROTECTION, TEXAS LAW DOESN'T PROVIDE A BLANKET EXEMPTION FOR PRIVATE CLUBS ENGAGED IN GAMBLING. LEGITIMATE PRIVATE CLUBS HAVE GENUINE MEMBERSHIP CRITERIA, SOCIAL ACTIVITIES, AND A COMMUNITY PURPOSE CHAMPIONS IS SIMPLY USING THE CLUB LABEL TO EVADE THE LAW. LASTLY, CLEAR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS. UM, BOTH SECTIONS 47.03 AND OH FOUR. IT CHAMPIONS IS IN VIOLATION OF BOTH OF THEM BY CHARGING FEES FOR ACCESS TO A GAMBLING FACILITY. THE PAYMENT METHOD IS IRRELEVANT. PLEASE PROTECT DALLAS BY UPHOLDING THE LAW AND NOT PERMITTING CHAMPIONS TO OPERATE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS TARA CARE TURE. I LIVE AT 5 5 1 4 HARBOR TOWN DRIVE AND I'VE LIVED THERE FOR THREE YEARS. I OPPOSE CHAMPIONS OPERATING ANY ESTABLISHMENT AT THE OLD THREE FORKS LOCATION OTHER THAN A RESTAURANT. GIVEN THE SEATING CAPACITY, THE PARKING IS INADEQUATE FOR WORKERS AND PATRONS. SO PARKING WILL WILL SPILL INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS BEHIND THE OLD THREE FORKS. GIVEN THAT THE LONG-TERM PLAN IS GAMBLING, BIG GAMBLING OR THEY WOULDN'T HAVE INVESTED $15 MILLION. CRIME WILL FIND THIS LOCATION AND ITS PATRONS AND WILL SPILL INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. [01:45:01] THE PLAN BUSINESS OF GAMBLING, BIG GAMBLING SHOULD NOT BE ADJACENT TO OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD OF OVER 600 HOMES WITH FAMILIES, WALKING DOGS, PUSHING STROLLERS, RIDING BIKES AND JOGGING. UM, LASTLY, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY, UM, I KNOW YOU ALL ARE VOLUNTEERS AND WE APPRECIATE THE TIME YOU'RE TAKING TO HEAR THIS CA CASE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HI, MY NAME IS MARGARET CAROLYN RAZOR. I LIVE AT 5 1 4 8 QUAIL LAKE DRIVE IN BEN TREE NORTH. YOU'VE HEARD ABUNDANTLY ALREADY ABOUT WHAT A NICE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD IT IS AND HOW MUCH WE CARE ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY. MY WALKING BUDDY AND I, UH, LOOKED AT ALL THE ENTRANCES AND EXITS THIS MORNING AS WE WERE OUT AND SHE DETAILED HOW PEOPLE CUT THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO AVOID HEAVY TRAFFIC ALONG THE DALLAS NORTH TO TOLLWAY CORRIDOR AND THE SIX LANES OF FRANKFURT ROAD. BUT WHAT NO ONE HAS DISCUSSED YET IS HOW ALCOHOL IS LIKELY TO FACTOR INTO THIS. I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYBODY SIT AROUND A POKER TABLE SIPPING A DIET COKE. I THINK CHAMPIONS, IF THEY'RE NOT GONNA MAKE THEIR MONEY FROM GAMBLING, IS GONNA HAVE TO MAKE THEIR MONEY FROM ALCOHOL. AND THE IDEA THAT 500 PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN SITTING AROUND, SITTING AROUND DRINKING SCOTCH AND SODA FROM SEVEN O'CLOCK TILL MIDNIGHT ARE GONNA BE DRIVING THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AN AREA WHERE THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS SEEMS UNSAFE TO ME AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION IN LAS VEGAS EVEN WHERE GAMBLING IS CLEARLY LEGAL. THEY'RE NOT PUTTING THOSE PLACES NEXT TO SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES AND FAMILY HOMES AND I HOPE YOU WILL KEEP THAT FROM HAPPENING IN DALLAS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, THANK YOU TO THIS BOARD FOR YOUR SERVICE. MY NAME IS RAJ NAREN. I LIVE AT 1 7 5 1 5 RIVER HILL DRIVE. UH, I'M A HUNDRED FEET FROM THE, UH, SUBJECT APPLICANT AND LOCATION. I CAN'T KEEP TRACK OF ALL THE NAMES, SO I'LL JUST CALL, I'LL CALL, CALL 'EM THE APPLICANT. UM, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO MENTION A COUPLE THINGS. WHEN, WHEN I SERVED ON THE DFW AIRPORT BOARD FOR SIX YEARS, WE ALWAYS GO BACK TO RULES, FACTS AND LAWS AND FEDERAL LAWS, STATE LAWS, NOISE ENVIRONMENT, ALL THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. AND IN THIS CASE WE HAVE LAWS, WE HAVE LEGAL PRECEDENTS, WE HAVE JUDGE MOYES RULING. UM, AND IN THAT RULING, WHICH IS STILL THE ACTIVE RULING OF THE DAY, UM, HE RULED THAT CHAMPIONS CLUB AND DALLAS POKER CLUB THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS VOTED TO AFFIRM THE BUILDING'S OFFICIALS DECISION TO NOT DENY THE CO TO THE POKER ROOMS 'CAUSE THEY DID NOT COMPLY WITH TEXAS LAW. AND, AND IT'S A, IT'S A LAW AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I THINK THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON. MY NEIGHBORS HAVE BROUGHT UP, UM, UH, ALL THOSE RULES. THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION AND PORTIONS OF THE TEXAS PENAL CODE, WHICH FULFILL THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, WILL MANAGE TO PROHIBIT GAMBLING. THE COURT HAS JURISDICTIONS TO MAKE THOSE ASSESSMENTS. THEY DID, UH, TEXAS CARDHOUSE USE AT THE PROPERTY VIOLATES THE TEXAS CONSTITUTIONAL, UM, THE PROHIBITION ON THESE LOTTERIES. UM, AND THE CITY MUST DENY AN APPLICATION, UH, AND REVOKE A CO FOR WHICH USE VIOLATES TEXAS LAW. THIS USE CASE VIOLATES TEXAS LAW, UM, AND A PERSON VIOLATES THE TEXAS PENAL CODE PROHIBITION ON GAMBLING IF HE PLAYS AND BETS FOR MONEY OR OTHER THING OF VALUE AT ANY GAME. PLAYED WITH CARDS, DICE BALLS, OR ANY OTHER GAMBLING DEVICE. UM, SO BESIDES VIOLATING THE LAW, UM, IT'S A HORRIBLE VENUE AND LOCATION AND THERE'S 1200 PLUS PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED THE PETITION AND MY 70 PLUS NEIGHBORS THAT ARE HERE, IT'S JUST A TERRIBLE LOCATION FOR A GAMBLING LOCATION AT THE ENTRANCE OF BEN TREE NORTH. UM, THE PARKING TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS, UH, MY, THE NEIGHBOR THAT SPOKE BEFORE ME MENTIONED THE PARKING CONSIDERATIONS AT ONE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING AND TRYING TO GET PEOPLE, UH, AWAY FROM THE LOCATION AFTER THEY'VE BEEN CONSUMING ALCOHOL. UM, NO, THAT'S NO BENEFIT TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, AN EXTREME SAFETY RISK. AND, UM, SO I, I WOULD PLEASE OR ASK THIS BOARD TO CONSIDER ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT HAVE SHOWN UP HERE TODAY IN OPPOSITION TO THE CO UM, IF NOT FOR THE LAW, FOR THE VENUE AND LOCATION BEING A HORRIBLE LOCATION FOR IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. AND IF YOU'D COME FORWARD AND HOLD FOR ONE SECOND. AND THEN MS. WILLIAMS, YOU'VE CALLED THE NEXT FIVE. SHANNON FRANCE. KEVIN MANSON. JEFF HURT. JIMMY BRYAN. NATALIA NATALIA BECK. [01:50:17] OKAY. PLEASE, PLEASE PROCEED. MY NAME'S LESLIE HEBA. I LIVE AT 51 11 SPYGLASS DRIVE IN DALLAS AND HAVE FOR 18 YEARS WITH MY FAMILY. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING NEW TO SAY, SO I'M JUST GONNA KEEP IT SHORT. THEY SPEND AN AWFUL LOT OF MONEY ON SECURITY THAT THEY SAY THERE'S NO NEED FOR. SO I'D PREFER IT NOT TO BE AT THE ENTRANCE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE WE HAVE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, SCHOOLS, AND THE INCREASED TRAFFIC WILL BE A PROBLEM. THERE'S NO ROOM FOR IT ON OUR CITY STREETS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M GINA O' BRYANT AND I AM A PRECINCT CHAIR FOR OUR, IN OUR PRECINCT. SO I FEEL LIKE I'M SPEAKING FOR SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS WHO COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY. AND I JUST WANTED TO MENTION, UH, ONE THING THAT I DON'T THINK HAS BEEN MENTIONED YET IS THAT THE MEMBERSHIP FEE IS ONLY A HUNDRED DOLLARS, UH, TO JOIN CHAMPIONS. AND, UH, IT'S ALSO BEEN WAIVED FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR. SO IT COULD, IT COULD BRING IN HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE COULD BE THERE EVERY DAY, WHICH WILL CAUSE SO MANY PROBLEMS AS FAR AS, UH, THE NOISE, THE TRAFFIC, IT COULD END UP BEING A 24 HOUR POKER ROOM. UH, IT, IT'LL HAVE AN IMPACT ON OUR PROPERTY. THERE'S ALSO NEGATIVE PERCEPTIONS, UH, LIVING CLOSE TO A POKER ROOM. THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT, UH, IT IT'S APPRAISERS RECOGNIZE THAT AS A NUISANCE. UH, AND THE FACT THAT THERE IS A SCHOOL IN A CHURCH IN OUR, IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I'VE NEVER HEARD OF SUCH A THING AS A POKER ROOM BEING SO CLOSE TO THAT. AND THEN, UH, SOMETHING WAS GIVEN TO ME THAT I'D LIKE TO READ THAT IS OF PUBLIC RECORD. UH, THERE WAS A RECON, A RECENT LEGAL ACTION BY ALLIED GAMING AND ENTERTAINMENT AGAINST UNITED PASTORS CHAMPIONS POKER ROOM PRINCIPAL ROY ROY CHOI AND NAOMI CHOI AND REBECCA. SO IN WHICH THE US DISTRICT COURT OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ISSUED A PRELIMINARY RULING AGAINST THE KNIGHTED PARTIES TO ACQUIRE LARGE QUANTITIES OF STOCK WITHOUT PROPER DISCLOSURE TO ALLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC REGULATIONS IN AN ATTEMPT TO SEIZE CONTROL OF THE ALLIED BOARD OF DIRECTORS. FOLLOWING THE PRELIMINARY RULING, TROY CLAIMS THAT HE AND HIS ASSOCIATES HAVE DIVESTED THEIR INTEREST IN ALLIED AND DONATED THE PROCEEDS TO CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS. HOWEVER, KNIGHT HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY DOCUMENTATION OF THE DIVESTITURE. IN LIGHT OF THIS, IT'S DIFFICULT FOR DALLAS NEIGHBORHOODS TO RELY ON ANY REPRESENTATION THAT KNIGHTED CHAMPIONS POKER CLUB OR CHO MAKES REGARDING HOURS OF OPERATION OR PROVIDING PROPER SECURITY FOR THE POKER ROOM PREMISES NEAR OUR HOME SCHOOLS AND CHURCH. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU DENIED THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO UNITED CHO AND CHAMPIONS POKER ROOM. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. MR. CHAIRMAN? YES. I DON'T BELIEVE THE PRIOR SPEAKER GAVE HER ADDRESS TO THE RECORD. DO YOU HAVE HER ADDRESS ON THE CARD? OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, MS. WILLIAMS, WILL YOU ASK ON THE RECORD FOR THIS, UH, YOUNG LADY, IF SHE'D GIVE HER A NAME AGAIN? WOULD YOU READ OFF WHAT YOU HAVE FOR HER? IS THAT MISS GINA? GINA O'BRIEN? O'BRIEN FIVE FOUR C PINE DRIVE. I'M SO SORRY. NO PROBLEM. WE JUST WANT TO GET IT 'CAUSE IT GOES IN THE MINUTES. EVERYONE'S NAME GETS WRITTEN DOWN. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. OVITZ. OKAY. UM, PLEASE PROCEED. ALRIGHT, GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M SHANNON FRANCE. I LIVE AT 48 15 BELLA REEF DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS. I'M ON THE HOA BOARD. I'VE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 18 YEARS AND LOVED EVERY MINUTE OF IT. UM, WE HAVE COVERED SOME OF THIS, BUT I'M JUST GONNA GO REALLY QUICK. UM, BECAUSE GAMBLING IS, BECAUSE GAMBLING IS ILLEGAL. LET'S DISCUSS SOME OF THE RECENT COURT ACTIVITY. WHEN THE CITY OF DALLAS CONSULTED WITH OTHER TEXAS JURISDICTIONS AND FOUND THAT THEY WERE MISLED BY THE TEXAS COURTHOUSE, BUSINESS PLAN AND POKER CLUBS ARE ILLEGAL, THEY REVOKED ALL CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO TRIAL JUDGE IN TEXAS WHO HAD RULED ON THE LEGALITY OF THESE CLUBS. THE BOA MOVED TO ALLOW TCH TO REMAIN OPEN. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN DISTRICT COURT, JUDGE MOYE RULED THAT POKER CLUBS WERE ILLEGAL. WHEN TCH APPEALED MOYER'S DECISION, THE COURT SIDESTEPPED THE LEGALITY ISSUE AND ONLY SAID THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS DID NOT ACT INAPPROPRIATELY, INAPPROPRIATELY IN REISSUING THE CEO. SINCE THERE WAS NO LEGAL PRECEDENT, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT HAS DECIDED NOT TO HEAR THE TCH CASE, BUT DID NOT CONTRADICT ANY PREVIOUS RULINGS. NO ONE HAS CHALLENGED JUDGE MOYE ON THE LEGALITY OF POKER CLUBS. [01:55:02] CHAMPIONS HAS THEIR OWN CASE PENDING IN DISTRICT COURT 1 93. WE ASK THAT YOU UPHOLD THE CITY'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE CEO FOR CONTENDERS AND LET THIS TRY OUT IN A COURT OF LAW. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, MY NAME IS JEFFREY HURT. I LIVE AT 5 0 1 2 SPYGLASS DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS. OBVIOUSLY IN THE MINARY NORTH AREA, SOMETIMES THERE'S MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAN HAVING BUSINESSES BEING ABLE TO MAKE MONEY. THESE GUYS AT CHAMPIONS ARE, YOU KNOW, UH, ADMITTED GAMBLERS. SOMETIMES WHEN YOU GAMBLE, YOU WIN, SOMETIMES YOU LOSE. THEY'VE LOST SO FAR, THEY SHOULD CONTINUE TO. WHY DO I SAY THAT? I'M A GRADUATE OF BOTH THE AIR FORCE ACADEMY AND DUKE LAW SCHOOL. I KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT SECURITY, I KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE LAW. LET'S START WITH SECURITY. YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE DRINKING, PLAYING CARDS WITH THEIR MONEY OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TABLE. HALF OF THEM ARE MORE PACKING HEAT. WHAT CAN GO WRONG? THESE GUYS HAVE A BUNCH OF SECURITY. OF COURSE THEY DO. WHY DO THEY HAVE SO MUCH SECURITY? THEY NEED IT. WE'D RATHER NOT HAVE THAT SECURITY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THE OTHER THING THAT'S IMPORTANT IS WE DON'T NEED A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE OPERATING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WHY DO I SAY CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE? NOT ONLY JUDGE MOYER'S OPINION, BUT IF YOU READ THE ACTUAL STATUTE, 47 0 4 SAYS YOU CAN'T, IT'S ILLEGAL TO KEEP A GAMBLING PLACE. THAT'S WHERE THIS EXCEPTION IN THERE THAT I BELIEVE IS FOR PRIVATE HOME GAMBLING. BUT SOME PEOPLE THINK IT'S GRAY. ASSUME IT'S GRAY. THAT EXCEPTION DEALS WITH KEEPING A GAMBLING PLACE. 47 0 3 SAYS IT'S ILLEGAL TO OPERATE A GAMBLING PLACE. YOU KNOW, CHAMPIONS VARY UPRIGHT ABOUT THIS. THEY WANT TO OPERATE A GAMBLING PLACE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, 47 0 5. IT'S ILLEGAL TO COMMUNICATE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT BETS. THAT EXCEPTION DOESN'T APPLY TO 47 0 5. THEY ARE GOING TO ADVERTISE, GO LOOK AT THEIR WEBSITE. THEY'RE GONNA A, THEY ADVERTISE THESE BIG POKER TOURNAMENTS. THEY ARE VIOLATING A CRIMINAL LAW. WE REQUEST THAT YOU ENFORCE THE LAW AND DO NOT ALLOW A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE TO OPERATE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. AND IF YOU WOULD, HOLD ONE SECOND SIR. MS. WILLIAMS, IF YOU'D CALL FIVE MORE SPEAKERS. SCOTT PATILLO MYRA, FRANK. FRANKIE, UH, BRENDAN VAIN, SIL CALLAWAY, JOHN REGAL ALL KYLE KNOX. YOU MAY PROCEED. MY NAME IS KEVIN MENING. I LIVE AT 5 1 4 3 QUA LAKE DRIVE IN THE NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD NEXT TO CONTENDERS SLASH CHAMPIONS. I SERVE AS TREASURER ON OUR HOA BOARD AND I WANT TO COMMENT ON THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF GAMING ESTABLISHMENTS ON RESIDENTIAL AREA PROPERTY VALUES. I GOT A BACHELOR'S OF SCIENCE DEGREE FROM, UH, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS IN AUSTIN. I GOT A MASTER'S IN STATISTICS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH IN SALT LAKE CITY. I WAS ONCE AN ASSOCIATE IN THE SOCIETY OF ACTUARIES AND I WORKED AT A LITTLE INSURANCE COMPANY CALLED USAA DOWN IN SAN ANTONIO. YOU MAY HAVE SEEN ROCK'S ADVERTISEMENTS FOR US. TWO PAPERS CAUGHT MY EYE FOR THEIR MATHEMATICAL RIGOR AND ROBUSTNESS. THE ONE, IF I CAN READ MY NOTES HERE, IS BY, UH, BARBARA GIANNI, UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA LAS VEGAS. IT EXAMINED THE IMPACT OF CASINOS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES IN HENDERSON, NEVADA AND EXAMINED 15 YEARS OF DATA. THE OTHER ONE WAS AN INDEPENDENT PAPER BY HUANG HUMPHREYS AND SHU DO URBAN CASINOS AFFECT NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS? EVIDENCE FROM CANADA THAT EXAMINED 21 YEARS OF DATA, BOTH OF THEM ARRIVED AT THE SAME CONCLUSIONS THAT THE IMPACT ON EDOS ON NEARBY ESTABLISHMENTS HAD A NET NEGATIVE EFFECT ON HOUSING PRICES WITHIN A THREE MILE RADIUS RELATIVE TO THE HOMES OUTSIDE THAT THREE MILE RADIUS. AND IT'S IN THE CASE OF 7% LOSS AND IN HENDERSON, [02:00:01] 8% IN CANADA. SO IF YOU APPLY THAT 7% TO ENTRY NORTH AVERAGE HOUSE PRICE TAX VALUATION OF 900,000, ADJUSTING FOR SOME OF THE ABATEMENTS THAT PEOPLE GET, THAT'S $63,000. EACH RESIDENT IS GOING TO POTENTIALLY SUFFER IN LOST HOME VALUE. MULTIPLY THAT BY 640 HOMES, YOU'VE GOT $40 MILLION IN LOST VALUE. NOW YOU CONSIDER THAT LOSS OF INCOME OR PROPERTY TAX REVENUE. I PAY 2% ON MY HOME THERE IN VENTRY NORTH. THAT'S A NET LOSS OF IF IT'S 40 MILLION BUCKS, $800,000 A YEAR SPREAD ACROSS CITY OF DALLAS, COLLIN COUNTY, COLLIN COLLEGE PLAN, OISD. PLEASE KEEP OUR TAX DOLLARS LOCAL AND SUPPORT EDUCATION HERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH SIR. I AM JIMMY BRYANT. I LIVE AT 5 0 0 3 BEIF DRIVE. UH, YOU KNOW MY CONCERNS, THEY'RE FAR GREATER THAN JUST MY NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S FOR THE WHOLE CITY OF DALLAS. I FEEL LIKE THAT IF, UH, THIS IS ALLOWED IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE ALLOWED ANYWHERE. I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO STOP IT. IT'S JUST GONNA CONTINUE. UH, YOU GOT SCHOOLS, YOU GOT CHURCHES WITHIN BLOCKS OF OUR HOUSES, UH, BASED ON THE CITY AND ZONING ORDINANCES, CARDHOUSE SHOULD NOT BE AND ARE NOT ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. ALLOWING THEM IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA WOULD VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLES OF ZONING, WHICH ARE DESIGNED TO SEPARATE INCOMPATIBLE LAND USE IF ALLOWED, THIS WILL LEAD TO INCREASED TRAFFIC, UH, DISRUPTING THE PEACE AND QUIET OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. AND LET'S NOT FORGET THE INCREASE IN CRIME THAT GOES HAND IN HAND WITH GAMBLING. FOR THESE REASONS, DALLAS ZONING REGULATIONS ARE STRUCTURED TO PREVENT SUCH BUSINESSES FROM OPERATING AREAS ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE, THEREFORE PROTECTING THE CHARACTER AND THE QUALITY OF THE LIFE OF THE RESIDENTS. UH, IN CLOSING, I'VE GOT THREE GRANDKIDS. I'VE HAD A 7-YEAR-OLD, A 5-YEAR-OLD, AND A 2-YEAR-OLD. MY DAUGHTERS HAVE ALREADY EXPRESSED THIS TO ME THAT UNTIL THEY SEE HOW THIS ALL PLAYS OUT, MY GRANDKIDS MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SPEND THE NIGHT AT MY HOUSE ON THE WEEKENDS, WHICH BREAKS MY HEART. SO I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION AND VOTE AGAINST THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU KINDLY. GOOD AFTERNOON. UM, MY NAME IS NATALIA BECK AND I LIVE IN REE NORTH AT, UH, 51 23 SPY GLASS DRIVE. I'VE LIVED IN MY BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OVER 20 YEARS. SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER ME FROM THE AUGUST MEETING. I SPOKE THEN ABOUT CHAMPION SOUP. ON THE SURFACE IT LOOKS VERY APPEALING, HIRING A TOP CHEF, EMPLOYING LOCAL STAFF, EVEN INTERNATIONAL STAFF AS WE LEARNED TODAY SUPPORTING THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB. BUT THERE'S POISON AT THAT SOUP. THE POKER ELEMENT. POKER ROOMS ARE, UH, LIKE THIS ARE ILLEGAL. THEY HAVE BEEN FOR HUNDRED 80 YEARS FOR A REASON. THE CITY OF DALLAS REVIEWED IT THOROUGHLY. IT WASN'T ONE PERSON'S OPINION OR DECISION, IT WAS THE UNITED EFFORT. COUNCILWOMAN KAREN MENDELSON, STATE REPRESENTATIVE SHAHEEN, COLIN COUNTY, DA WILLIS, DALLAS POLICE CHIEF GARCIA, THE DA'S FROM COLIN DENTON AND COUNTY. UM, COUNTY, CITY ATTORNEY, TAMMY PALINO, THE MAYOR, THE CITY MANAGER, AND MANY DEPARTMENTS ALL CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION. POKER ROOMS LIKE THIS ARE ILLEGAL PERIOD. CHAMPIONS MAY CALL THEMSELVES A SOCIAL CLUB, BUT THAT IS JUST A DISGUISE. WE ALL KNOW THAT THEY SIMPLY FOUND A LOOPHOLE. CHAMPIONS WANT TO PROTECT THEIR MONEY. I WANT TO PROTECT MY HOME ON BEHALF OF MY NEIGHBORS, MY FAMILY, AND MYSELF. I THANK THE CITY FOR STANDING STRONG AND I URGE YOU TO DO THE SAME TODAY. DENY THIS APPEAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, MY NAME IS SCOTT PATILLO. I LIVE AT 17 5 7 MURFIELD DRIVE IN MI NORTH. UH, WE'VE BEEN IN MIN TREE NORTH FOR SE UH, FOR EIGHT YEARS. I HEARD A COUPLE OF THE GENTLEMEN EARLIER TALKING ABOUT HOW IT'S HARD TO BE HERE ON A TUESDAY DURING BUSINESS. I SHARE THAT SAME DIFFICULTY. I'M A CEO OF A MIDSIZE COMPANY, BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT TO ME. IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME BECAUSE I HAVE FOUR KIDS. WE GO PAST THAT ENTRANCE MULTIPLE TIMES A DAY. THE IDEA OF HAVING A GAMBLING ESTABLISHMENT THERE, IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH MY VALUES, IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH MY FAMILY'S VALUES. IT'S NOT [02:05:01] CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE CRIME STATISTICS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER. UM, WE HAD AN ISSUE EARLIER, UH, I GUESS LAST YEAR MY WIFE AND I WERE OUT FOR A WALK. HAD A VAGRANT THAT CHARGED US IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, CALLED THE POLICE. TOOK THEM TWO HOURS BEFORE THEY FINALLY TOLD ME WE HAVE NO OFFICERS AVAILABLE. UM, IF THAT'S HOW THEY TREAT THAT SORT OF THING. AFTER MULTIPLE OTHER FAMILIES REPORTED THE SAME MAN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ANY INCREASE IN CRIME LIKE WE'VE SEEN IN THESE STATISTICS TODAY, UH, GREATLY CONCERNED ME. SO I'M AGAINST IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MYRA FRAKE. I LIVE AT 5 1 4 3 QUAIL LAKE DRIVE AND I'VE BEEN A BEN TREE NORTH RESIDENT FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU AND YOUR BOARD MEMBERS FOR YOUR SERVICE AND THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. TODAY I AM AGAINST GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR CHAMPIONS TO RUN A POKER ESTABLISHMENT. AND SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU JUST HEARD ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS TALK ABOUT, MY CONCERN IS NOT ONLY FOR OUR BELOVED NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT'S FOR OTHERS THAT LIVE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. IF YOU AS A BOARD GRANT THIS CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY NOW, DOES IT NOT CIRCUMVENT THE OFFICIAL PROCESS FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS TO POSSIBLY ENACT ZONING ORDINANCES THAT WOULD ESTABLISH, UH, GAMING, UM, ESTABLISHMENTS FROM OPERATING NEXT TO CHURCHES, HOSPITALS, NEIGHBORHOODS, SCHOOLS? AND WOULD THAT ALSO ELIMINATE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR NEIGHBORS IN THE BROADER DALLAS AREA TO HAVE A PUBLIC VOICE TO VOICE THEIR OPINION IN A PUBLIC FORUM ON THAT TOPIC? IT'S FOR THESE REASONS AND FOR MANY OF THE OTHERS, YOU HEARD FROM MY NEIGHBORS THAT I WOULD ASK YOU TO UPHOLD THE CITY OF DALLAS'S DECISION TO RESCIND THE CI CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR CHAMPIONS POKE CLUB. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. BRENDAN BAIN, I LIVE AT 48 36 SAND DUSTIN DRIVE IN BEN TREE NORTH. I'M OPPOSED TO THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. I THINK ZONING IS VERY IMPORTANT. LOCATION IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND WHILE THIS MAY HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN OTHER AREAS IN HOUSTON, EVEN IN DALLAS, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED OUTSIDE OF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE WE GO BACK AND FORTH EVERY DAY, MULTIPLE TIMES WE HAVE YOUNG KIDS WE NEED TO UPHOLD LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION, AND THE ZONING THAT WE HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. IF YOU'D HOLD ONE SECOND. MS. WILLIAMS, OTHER SPEAKERS. I, I BELIEVE MR. KEITH WAKI IS ONLINE. WELL, WE'LL DO THE ONLINE LAST. OH, THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S IT. ALRIGHT, SO CONTINUE. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS SYBIL CALLAWAY. MY ADDRESS IS 46 36 SPYGLASS DRIVE. I LIVE ON THE CORNER OF AND BRIAR GROVE CHAMPIONS IS ONE BLOCK FROM MY HOME. I'M AGAINST THE CHAMPIONS CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FIRST AND FOREMOST DUE TO CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR FREQUENTLY ASSOCIATED WITH GAMBLING SUCH AS LARCENY, DRUGS AND PROSTITUTION. SECONDLY, MY FAMILY WILL BE AFFECTED BY INCREASED TRAFFIC AS WE ENTER AND EXIT OUR DRIVEWAY. DUE TO CLUB PATRONS WHO WILL USE MY STREET AS A CUT THROUGH TO AVOID THE CORNER OF FRANKFURT AND THE TOLL WAY, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU OPPOSE THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND PROTECT THE FAMILIES IN OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HELLO, MY NAME IS JOHN REGAL. I'M A RESIDENT OF VENTRY NORTH AT 5 1 0 7 SUMMIT HILL DRIVE. WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 15 YEARS. WHAT MATTERS IN THIS CASE? WELL, IS IT THE INVESTMENT CHAMPION IS MADE IN THE PROPERTY? IT'S A LOT OF MONEY, BUT NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT REALLY MATTERS. IS IT THE INTEGRITY OF CHAMPIONS MANAGEMENT? THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD THINGS MAYBE THAT ARE THERE, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS CASE IS REALLY ABOUT. IS IT HOW MUCH SECURITY CHAMPION HAS ADDED TO MINIMIZE RISKS? NO, THAT'S NOT THE REAL SIMPLE TOPIC EITHER. I'LL MAKE IT SIMPLE. CHAMPIONS IS A GAMBLING PLACE. THEY ADMIT IT. IT'S SIMPLE. TEXAS SPIRIT, THE SPIRIT OF, UH, TEXAS PENAL CODE OUTLAWS GAMBLING PLACES. SECTION 47.04 SUBSECTION A AND SECTION 47.01 SUBSECTION THREE. THEREFORE, CHAMPIONS VIOLATES THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. [02:10:01] WE AS RESIDENTS, WE RELY ON YOU TO ENFORCE THE LAW. WE'RE AT YOUR MERCY TO DO WHAT THE RIGHT THING IS AND WHEN THERE'S A GRAY AREA TO UPHOLD THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR HERE. CHAMPIONS PUTS US ALL AT RISK FROM INCREASED CRIME AND ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES, WHICH WE'VE HEARD ABOUT FROM A NUMBER OF PEOPLE TODAY. WE NEED YOU TO HELP PROTECT OUR CHILDREN, OUR FAMILIES, OUR COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY NEAR THE SCHOOLS. THE CHURCHES UPHOLD TEXAS ANTI-GAMBLING LAWS REJECT THIS APPEAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS KYLE KNOX. I LIVE AT 51 20 BE DRIVE. I'VE, MY WIFE AND I HAVE LIVED IN VENTRY NORTH FOR WELL OVER 21 YEARS. I APPRECIATE THE REPRESENTATION THAT THEY'VE INVESTED 15 MILLION AT THIS LOCATION, BUT THAT WAS A GAMBLE. A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE SO WE CAN HEAR YOU PLEASE. OKAY. I APPRECIATE THEIR, THERE YOU GO. THE REPRESENTATION THAT THEY'VE INVESTED SOMEWHERE AROUND $15 MILLION AT THAT LOCATION, BUT THAT WAS A GAMBLE. WHETHER IT WAS A RISK OR A SKILL, WHATEVER THEY GAMBLED, WHETHER OR NOT THAT THAT WAS GONNA BE A, A PROPER BET. UH, JUST IN VENTRY NORTH ALONE, THERE'S OVER 600 RESIDENTS AND BY MY QUICK CALCULATION THAT'S OVER $650 MILLION OF REAL INVESTMENT. SORRY. UM, I OPPOSE THE CHAMPIONS OR CONTENDERS OR WHATEVER THEIR NAME IS, RECEIVING THEIR CERTIFICATE OCCUPANCY FOR THE USE OF A A POKER OR GAMBLING OPERATION. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO A RESTAURANT OR EVENT CENTER USE. I WELCOME IT. UH, A POKER GAMBLING USE OPERATION IS NOT A HOMOGENEOUS USE WITHIN THE PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WHY MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS AND ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE TO, OR OPERATE OR EVEN GRANT THIS WHEN THERE'S STILL PENDING LITIGATION IS BEYOND ME. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, ARE THERE, HAVE YOU COMPLETED YOUR FIRST RUN THROUGH ANYONE THAT HAS SIGNED IN FOR IN-PERSON TO PUBLIC SPEAKING? DID EVERYBODY THAT SIGN UP WAS ABLE TO SPEAK? UM, WE MISSED A FEW PEOPLE. SO, SO HERE'S MY QUESTION. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN THE CHAMBER THAT WANTED TO SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC SPEAKING PORTION OF THE AGENDA THAT HASN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK? OKAY. SO DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, REGISTERED SPEAKERS ONLINE? MS. KATHLEEN WAZOWSKI AND KEITH WAZOWSKI, CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE VIDEO AND AUDIO? PLEASE, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND PROCEED. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. KEITH, TURN YOUR, TURN, YOUR MUTE, MUTE YOUR THING. WE'RE IN THE SAME ROOM. I'M SORRY. PLEASE PROCEED. MY NAME IS KATHLEEN KY AND I'M HERE TODAY TO EXPRESS MY FULL SUPPORT AND CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR CHAMPION SOCIAL CLUB CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. MY HUSBAND AND I ARE PROUD TO BE MEMBERS OF CHAMPION SOCIAL CLUB. WE ENJOYED THEIR SCHEDULED MEMBERSHIP EVENTS. WE'VE HOSTED MANY OF OUR OWN EVENTS THERE AS WELL. MA'AM, I NEED YOU TO GIVE A SHIRT, MA'AM. EXCUSE ME A SECOND. HOLD ON A SECOND MA'AM. OUT WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS, YOU NEED TO GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE. THIS EXPERIENCE, THIS HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY MEMORABLE AND OUTSTANDING. OKAY. THE STAFF ARE WONDERFUL. THEY'RE FRIENDLY, PROFESSIONAL, THEY GENUINELY CARE ABOUT THE GUEST EXPERIENCE. IT'S CLEAR THAT THEY'RE COMMITTED TO BEING A POSITIVE PART OF THE NORTH DALLAS COMMUNITY. I RESPECTFULLY URGE THE BOARD TO APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR CHAMPION SOCIAL CLUB. IT'S A VALUABLE ASSET TO OUR NEIGHBORS AND I BELIEVE IT WILL CONTINUE TO ENRICH OUR COMMUNITY FOR YEARS TO COME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, WOULD YOU GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE? 7,000 STINT DRIVE, PLANO, TEXAS. THANK YOU SIR. NAME AND ADDRESS FIRST, PLEASE. THIS IS KEITH RKI, UH, 7,000 STINNETT, UH, DRIVE, PLANO, TEXAS. UH, AND, UH, I LIVE IN WORK IN THE THE NORTH DALLAS AREA AND AS A MEMBER OF CHAMPION SOCIAL CLUB, I'M SORRY, WE LOST YOUR, WE LOST YOUR VIDEO. I'M SORRY. DO YOU GOT IT? DO YOU HAVE IT? YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. UM, MY NAME'S KEITH ROSKI. I LIVE IN WORK IN NORTH DALLAS AREA. AS A MEMBER OF CHAMPION SOCIAL CLUB, I'M IN FULL SUPPORT OF THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. I, UH, HAVE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED A HOSPITALITY INTEGRITY AND FIVE STAR DINING, UH, EXPERIENCE THAT CHAMPIONS PROVIDES. THEY'RE DEEPLY COMMITTED TO ENRICHING THE LOCAL COMMUNITY, CREATING JOBS, SUPPORTING [02:15:01] LOCAL VENDORS, AND PROVIDING, PROVIDING A VIBRANT GATHERING SPACE AT FOSTERS CONNECTION, CELEBRATION, AND CULTURAL ENGAGEMENT. THE CHAMPION SOCIAL CLUB IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF BUSINESS THAT DALLAS SHOULD BE WORKING WITH. ITS PRESENCE WILL UNDOUBTEDLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONTINUED GROWTH AND VITALITY OF NORTH DALLAS. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT CHAMPIONS AND RESPECTFULLY ASK THE BOARD TO APPROVE THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH SIR. UM, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS THAT HAVE REGISTERED FOR PUBLIC SPEAKING THAT HAVE NOT SPOKEN YET? NO. THE SPEAKERS REGISTERED, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, FOR THE, FOR THE PUBLIC ONLINE AS WELL AS HERE IN THE CHAMBER, LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF, UM, UM, ROADMAP OF WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO. WE'RE GONNA GO NEXT TO OUR MISCELLANEOUS ITEM AGENDA, WHICH IS OUR MEETING MINUTES, AND THEN A FEE REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST. THAT'S ONE AND TWO. THEN WE'RE GONNA, UH, GO TO OUR, UH, CONSENT AGENDA. THAT'S KESSLER PARKWAY AND COLONIAL AVENUE. AND THEN WE'RE GONNA GO TO AN ITEM THAT'S WE'RE GONNA RECOMMEND ON HOLDOVER. THEN WE'RE GONNA TAKE A BREAK, NOT A LONG ONE, BUT JUST A SHORT BREAK. THEN WE'RE GONNA COME BACK AND HAVE THE 1 7 7 7 6 DALLAS PARKWAY, UH, APPEAL HEARING. SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HEADED. SO THAT BEING SAID, THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF OUR MEETING MINUTES FROM APRIL. FROM AUGUST 19TH. THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE TO APPROVE OUR, UH, PANEL A MEETING MINUTES FROM AUGUST 19TH, 2025. MS. HAYDEN HAS MOVED TO APPROVE MEETING MINUTES AS PREPARED FOR AUGUST 19TH PANEL A. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. BEEN SECOND. MR. KOVICH DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? NO DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. A AYE. THOSE OPPOSED PASSED. FIVE TO ZERO MEETING MINUTES ARE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. OKAY. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS, UH, BOA TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 2 9 FR ONE. THIS IS AT 59 17 BELGRADE AVENUE IS THE APPLICANT HERE. PLEASE COME DOWN. GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR. UH, MY NAME'S ABNER FUENTES AT 59 17 BELGRADE AVENUE. I JUST CAME TO ASK FOR A REFUND ON, I GUESS IT WAS THREE PERMITS AND THAT'S BASICALLY IT. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HEARD AT THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING THAT THE, UM, THAT THE, THE APPLICANT, UM, WAS ISSUED THE PERMITS IN ERROR AND THEN HAD TO GO, COME BACK TO US FOR THOSE. IS THAT CORRECT, MS. BOARD ADMINISTRATOR? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. UM, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MS. DAVIS. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 4 0 2 9 DASH FFR ONE ON APPLICATION OF ABNER FUENTES. GRANT, THE REQUEST TO THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FILING FEES PAID IN ASSOCIATION WITH CASE BO A DASH 25 DASH 4 0 3 9 FOR A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT REGULATIONS AND A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE FENCE OPACITY REGULATIONS AS REQUESTED BY THIS APPLICANT. BECAUSE OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP TO THIS APPLICANT, MS. DAVIS HAS MOVED TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A FREE RE FEE REIMBURSEMENT. THREE FEE REIMBURSEMENTS TOTALING, I THINK IT'S $1,800. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECONDED BY MR. OVITZ. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION MS. DAVIS. NO DISCUSSION MR. HAITZ. ANY COMMENTS? NO COMMENTS. NO COMMENTS. THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE. MS. HAYDEN. AYE. MS. DAVIS? AYE. MR. N AYE. MR. HAITZ? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE. MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF B OH A TWO FIVE DASH 0 2 9 FFR ONE. THE BOARD APPROVES ON A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO, THE REQUEST TO GRANT THE FEE REIMBURSEMENT. YOU'LL GET, UH, A LETTER AND HOPEFULLY A CHECK. OKAY. SHORTLY IN THE MAIL. WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE MISDIRECTION BY THE CITY TO YOU. NO PROBLEM. YOU THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE GOT YOUR NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS NUMBER THREE, OUR CONSENT AGENDA. WE HAVE TWO ITEMS THAT, THAT THIS MORNING AT THE BRIEFING THAT IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD TO PULL [02:20:01] OFF THE, UH, TO, TO KEEP ON THE CON UH, CONSENT AGENDA. UH, 2 5 0 0 0 0 3 7 2 5 0 0 0 0 4 1 THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION MS. HAYDEN, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS LISTED ON THE UNCONTESTED DOCKET BECAUSE IT APPEARS FROM OUR EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICATION SATISFY ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CODE AS APPLICABLE TO WIT BO OA TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 0 3 7 APPLICATION OF EDWARD HANE FOR VARIANCE FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED BO A TWO BO, A TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 0 4 1 APPLICATION OF AUDRA BUCKLEY FOR A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS ALONG COLONIAL AVENUE AND A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REGULATIONS ALONG EMERY STREET CONTAINED IN THE DALLAS DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION. COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF ALL SUBMITTED PLANS ARE REQUIRED IN THE MATTER OF BO A 2 5 0 0 0 0 3 7 BO A 2 5 0 0 0 0 4 1. MS. HAYDEN HAS MOVED TO TO GRANT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECONDED BY MR. HOPKOS. DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION. MS. HAYDEN. UH, BOTH OF THESE CASES MET THE CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I HAVE NOTHING ADDITIONAL. THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE. MS. HAYDEN AYE. MS. DAVIS? AYE. MR. HOFF AYE. MR. N AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN? AYE. MOTION TO GRANT PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BO A 2 5 0 0 0 0 3 7 BO A 2 5 0 0 0 0 4 1. THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ON A FIVE TO ZERO VOTE GRANTS THEIR REQUEST. YOU'LL GET A LETTER IN THE MAIL, A A LETTER OR EMAIL A DECISION LETTER FROM OUR BOARD ADMINISTRATOR IN THE NEXT TWO DAYS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS, IS BO A 25 DASH 0 0 0 4 4. UM, AT THE BRIEFING THIS MORNING, THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR ADVISED, UM, THE BOARD THAT THERE WAS A NOTIFICATION NOTICE, A ERROR. UM, WOULD YOU BRIEFLY TELL US ABOUT THAT AGAIN? MISS BOARD ADMINISTRATOR? OH, YOU BOARD ATTORNEY WHO'S GONNA TELL US SOMEONE NEEDS TO FROM THE STAFF. TELL US WHY WE'RE PUTTING THIS OFF. 30 DAYS THE NEWS NOTICE FOR THIS, THIS IS FROM OUR BOARD ATTORNEY. THE NEWS, OH, I'M SORRY. PARDON ME. THE NEWS NOTICE FOR THIS CASE WAS ADVERTISED AS LOT TWO AND THIS MATTER INVOLVES LOT ONE AND LOT TWO. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO, UM, HOLD THIS MATTER AND INSTRUCT STAFF TO RE-NOTICE WHAT THE, UM, PROPER PROPERTY DESCRIPTION THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. KOVI, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA 25 DASH 0 0 0 0 4 4 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL OCTOBER 21ST, 2025 WITH INSTRUCTION TO STAFF TO RE-NOTICE THE CASE WITH THE ACCURATE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION IN THE MATTER OF BO OA 2 5 0 0 0 0 4 4. UH, ON A MOTION OF MR. KOVI TO HOLD THIS ITEM UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL OCTOBER 21ST, 2025. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND SECONDED BY MR. NARY DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION. NO, NO DISCUSSION. THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE. MS. DAVIS. AYE. MS. HAYDEN AYE. MR. OVITZ AYE. MR. NARY AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, AYE. MOTION TO HOLD PASSES FIVE TO ZERO IN THE MATTER OF BO A 2 5 0 0 0 0 4 4 THE BOARD VOTED UNANIMOUSLY ON A FIVE TO ZERO VOTE TO HOLD THIS ITEM UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL OCTOBER. UNTIL OCTOBER 21ST, 2025. THANK YOU. OKAY, THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS, UH, BOA 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. WE'RE GONNA TAKE A BRIEF BREAK. UM, I'M GONNA SAY, UM, 10 MINUTES SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT. SO IT'S 3:25 PM WE'RE GONNA RE RECESS TILL 3:35 PM AND THEN CONTINUE ON. BUT THE NEXT CASE WE'LL HEAR IS 1 7 7 7 6 DALLAS PARKWAY. WE'RE IN RECESS UNTIL [02:25:01] 3:35 PM THANK YOU. IT'S 3:35 PM ON THE 16TH OF SEPTEMBER, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A IS HEREBY CALLED BACK TO ORDER NOW WE'LL JUST HOLD FOR A SECOND. SO I GET ORGANIZED MY STACKS. NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS BO A 25 DASH 0 0 0 0 1. DID I GET ALL THE ZEROS RIGHT THAT TIME? FIVE ZEROS. RIGHT. OKAY. THIS IS AT 1 7 7 7 6 DALLAS PARKWAY IS THE APPLICANT HERE. OKAY. IS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HERE OR REPRESENTED? OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, PUT THIS THAT WAY, I'M GONNA MAKE SOME PRELIMINARY COMMENTS. UM, SO THAT FRAMES THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING 'CAUSE IT'S DIFFERENT THAN TRADITIONAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETINGS. CONSISTENT WITH THIS, UH, OUR RULES OF PROCEDURES AS CODIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL BO OA CASE NUMBER 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 IS AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE REVOCATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 2 4 1 0 0 7 1 1 7 2 ISSUED ON APRIL 9TH, 2025. THAT'S ACCORDING TO OUR BRIEFING HEARINGS ARE BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR AO. APPEALS ARE HANDLED DIFFERENTLY THAN VARIANCE. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, INSPECTIONS, HEARINGS, AO APPEALS, THAT'S THE TERM WE USE. AO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL APPEALS ARE CONDUCTED LIKE A TRIAL WHERE EACH SIDE PRESENTS A CASE, MAY CALL WITNESSES, MAY CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES, PROVIDE TESTIMONY. THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO LISTEN TO ATTEND, BUT NOT PARTICIPATE. AND THAT IS, THAT IS THE RULES. THAT'S NOT US RIGHT NOW SAYING WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU. THAT'S THE RULES CONSISTENT IN OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE. UM, THE ONLY PEOPLE SPEAKING DURING THIS PHASE OF THE AGENDA ARE THE PANEL MEMBERS HERE TO MYSELF TO THE RIGHT, THE APPLICANT, THE, UH, CITY, UH, AND ANYONE THAT THEY WOULD CALL AS A WITNESS. THAT'S IT. LET ME VERY BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE OR LET NOW I'M GONNA TELL YOU WHAT THE BASIC, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THE BASIC PROCESS WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH. UH, THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS CONTENDER, UH, HAS ROUGHLY 20 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR CASE. THE APPLICANT MAY GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT, MAY CALL WITNESSES OR OFFER EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, IF THE APPLICANT CALLS A WITNESS, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS ABLE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THAT WITNESS FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES. THAT DOESN'T COUNT AGAINST THE TIME LIMIT, THE 20 MINUTE TIME LIMIT AND THE APPLICANT CAN REDIRECT, CAN CONDUCT A REDIRECT OF THE WITNESS. THE APPLICANT CAN SUBMIT DOCUMENTS TO THE BOARD SECRETARY. THEY SENT US 400 PAGES AND I READ MOST OF THEM, UM, AS LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RULES SET FORTH IN OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE. THE BOARD CAN ASK QUESTIONS AT ANY TIME. BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS WILL NOT COUNT TOWARD THE LIMITATION. WE WILL ASK THOROUGH QUESTIONS RIGHT FROM THE START. I'M ENCOURAGE MY BOARD MEMBERS FOREVER AND EVER ASK QUESTIONS. UH, AND I WILL, THEY WILL COORDINATE THROUGH ME. SO IT'S AN ORDERLY PROCESS. I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT YOUR TRAIN OF THOUGHT AS YOU PRESENT AND I WILL BE GENEROUS WITH YOUR TIME BOARD SECRETARY AND I WILL KEEP TRACK OF TIME, BUT I WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT WHAT THEY WANT TO PRESENT. UH, SO PROBABLY BE A LOT MORE THAN 20 MINUTES. IT WAS WHAT TYPICALLY WE'VE HAD IN BO APPEALS, BUT I WANNA REINFORCE QUESTIONS WILL COME RAPID FIRE. SO I WILL INTENTIONALLY SIT TO THE LEFT. SO I'M WATCHING MY PANEL MEMBERS IF THEY WANT TO ASK A QUESTION AND I GET, THEY GET MY ATTENTION AND THEN I WILL SAY, HOLD ONE SECOND. UH, WE HAVE A QUESTION AND THERE WILL BE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. I PROMISE YOU. ALRIGHT, I, THE BUILDING OFFICIALS CASE WILL ASK FOR 20 MINUTES. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MAY ALSO GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT. CALL WITNESSES OFFER EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, IF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CALLS A WITNESS, THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO CROSS EXAMINE THAT WITNESS FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES AGAIN AND IT DOESN'T COUNT AGAINST THEIR TIME. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CAN CONDUCT A REDIRECT OF HIS WITNESS. THE SAME RULES THEY JUST APPLY TO BOTH. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ALSO CAN SUBMIT DOCUMENTS TO THE BOARD SECRETARY. THEY DID THEIR ROLE IN PAPER AS WELL. UH, AS LONG AS THEY [02:30:01] COMPLY WITH THE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE SET FORTH AND RULES OF PROCEDURE. AGAIN, THE BOARD CAN ASK QUESTIONS AT ANY TIME THROUGH THE PRESIDING OFFICER BOARD MEMBER. QUESTIONS WILL NOT COUNT TOWARDS THE TIME LIMITATION. WE WILL BE GENEROUS WITH YOUR TIME. IF I FEEL LIKE YOU'RE BEING REDUNDANT, I WILL ASK YOU TO SUMMARIZE AND MOVE ON. BUT EVERYONE WILL, BOTH SIDES WILL HAVE AMPLE TIME TO MAKE THEIR CASE. THE APPLICANT WILL BE ALLOWED A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL. AGAIN, THESE ARE NOT RULES I'M CREATING. THESE ARE INNER RULES OF PROCEDURE. THE APPLICANT WILL ALSO BE ALLOWED A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WILL BE ALLOWED A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT. THOSE WILL ALL BE HELD IN A ADVANCE AFTER YOU MAKE YOUR PRESENTATIONS AND ALL THE QUESTIONS CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE. UH, IN ORDER TO, UH, TO REVERSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION REQUIRES FOUR OF FIVE VOTES. IF THERE ARE THREE VOTES THAT AFFIRMS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DECISION REQUIRES FOUR VOTES, UH, CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE, THE BOARD MAY IN WHOLE OR IN OR IN PART AFFIRM REVERSE AMEND THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. THE BOARD ALSO MAY IMPOSE REASONABLE CONDITIONS IN ITS ORDER TO BE COMPLIED WITH BY THE APPLICANT IN ORDER TO FURTHER PURPOSE AND THE INTENT OF THE CHAPTER. SO THE BOARD CAN AFFIRM, WHICH MEANS APPROVE WHAT THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY RE REVOKED. IT CAN REVERSE THAT REVOCATION AND IF IT REVERSES, IT CAN SET CONDITIONS ON THAT REVERSAL OF THE REVOCATION OR THE ISSUANCE OF A, A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. ARE WE ALL UNDERSTANDING THAT MY, MY ATTENTION'S NOW GOING TO THE FOUR OF YOU AS OPPOSED TO THE AUDIENCE? OKAY, THOSE ARE OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE. I HAVE MY WISE BOARD ATTORNEY HERE WITH ME THAT I MAY BEND OVER TO OCCASIONALLY. IT'S NOT WHISPERING. IT'S GETTING ADVICE ALONG THE WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT I STAY STRAIGHT AND NARROW WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE TO BOTH PARTIES BEFORE YOU BEGIN TO THE PUBLIC, LET ME SUMMARIZE WHAT WE'RE, WHAT'S HERE TODAY. THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT CONTENDERS APPLIED FOR A CERTIFICATE OCCUPANCY ON A DATE THAT WILL BE BROUGHT UP BY THE APPLICANT. THE CITY THROUGH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL APPROVED THE ORIGINAL ZONING. IT'S IN THE DOCUMENTS ALREADY, THE CITY IT'S IN. THE DOCUMENTS ISSUED THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THE CITY REVOKED THAT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. IT'S IN THE DOCUMENTS NOW. THE APPLICANT HAS APPEALED THAT REVOCATION. SO TO BE VERY CLEAR, APPLIED, APPROVED, ISSUED, REVOKED, APPEALED. THAT'S THE FACTS. SO WITH THAT BEING THE CASE, WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE APPLICANT AND I'D LIKE, UM, EACH ONE OF YOU TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF FIRST SO THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO DO EACH TIME. SO GO AHEAD AND BE THE APPLICANT. TOMMY MANN 500 WINSTEAD BUILDING REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. MALLORY MUSE, 500 WINSTEAD BUILDING REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. I'M STACY RODRIGUEZ, AN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, 1500 MARILLA STREET, REPRESENTING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. AND I'M MEGAN WEER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR WITH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. 1500 MORELA STREET. CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURES, ANYONE SPEAKING DURING A HEARING HAS TO BE SWORN IN. SO IF YOU PLEASE ALL STAND BOARD, SECRETARY, ANYONE SPEAKING TODAY, PLEASE STAND THAT WAY. WE GET ALL THAT OUT OF THE WAY. YOU CAN INTRODUCE YOUR WITNESSES WHEN YOU DO WHEN YOU WANT TO, BUT, OKAY, SO JUST ONE SECOND. JUST ONE SECOND. I THINK SOMEONE'S TRYING TO STAND, BUT I'M NOT SURE. IS SHE TESTIFYING? OKAY. IF YOU'D RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. MS. BOARD SECRETARY, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? YES, HE'S RIGHT THERE. OKAY, LET ME ORGANIZE ANOTHER PILE HERE. OKAY. YOU HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES PROCEDURE. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, YOU CAN GO AHEAD. PROCEED. THE CITY REVOKED OUR CEO BECAUSE TO QUOTE THE CITY'S BRIEF TO YOU, OPERATION OF A COMMERCIAL POKER CLUB IS ILLEGAL UNDER [02:35:01] TEXAS LAW. ON SEPTEMBER 5TH, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO OVERTURN THE DECISION OF THIS PANEL AND THE DALLAS COURT OF APPEALS TO LET TEXAS CARDHOUSE CONTINUE TO OPERATE. THE COURT COULD NOT HAVE DONE THAT IF COMMERCIALIZED POKER IS ILLEGAL IN TEXAS. TO FURTHER QUOTE THE CITY IN THEIR BRIEF TO YOU ON THIS APPEAL THAT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT RULED THE LEGAL QUESTION HERE IS THE SAME QUESTION SQUARELY BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT AND THEIR DECISION WILL PROVIDE A BINDING STATEWIDE PRECEDENT BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN IF WE CAN GET THEM. THERE ARE A SERIES OF OTHER STATEMENTS FROM THE CITY THAT THE OUTCOME OF THAT TCH APPEAL WILL CONTROL. THE SUPREME COURT IS RULED, YET WE'RE STILL HERE TODAY. WE'LL SPEND A LOT OF THIS HEARING LISTENING TO THE CITY, TRY TO QUALIFY EQUIVOCATE, DIFFERENTIATE AND DANCE AWAY FROM THESE STATEMENTS. AND THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT'S DECISION DO NOT BE FOOLED. THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT CANNOT AUTHORIZE THE ONGOING COMMISSION OF A CRIME. THE CITY WILL POINT OUT DIFFERENCES LIKE WE'RE IN COLLIN COUNTY, SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS DON'T WANT US HERE. AND MORE WHAT YOU WILL NOT HEAR TODAY AS A CITATION TO A CASE SUPPORTING THE CITY'S POSITION, A CHARGE OR CONVICTION FROM ANY DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN TEXAS AND ANY LEGAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE MANNER IN WHICH CHAMPIONS WOULD OPERATE POKER AND THE MANNER IN WHICH TCH IS NOW ALLOWED TO CONTINUE OPERATING POKER. THANKS TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, AS THE CITY REPEATEDLY STATES IN THEIR BRIEF TO YOU, THE DALLAS CITY CODE AND TEXAS PENAL CODE PROVISIONS AT ISSUE TODAY ARE THE SAME AS IN TCH. NEITHER THE DALLAS CITY CODE NOR THE TEXAS PENAL CODE ARE ORGANIZED BY COUNTY. THE CITY HAS PRESENTED AN UNSIGNED LETTER FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO'S NOT PRESENT TODAY. THE DA MADE THOSE SAME ARGUMENTS IN AN AMICUS BRIEF TO THE SUPREME COURT. THE SUPREME COURT REJECTED IT. A LETTER FROM THE DA IS NOT BINDING LAW. DECISIONS OF COURTS ARE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WILL ASK YOU TO YIELD TO THE CONCERNS OF NEIGHBORS AND VIEW US AS A HARBINGER OF CRIME WHEN IN FACT CHAMPIONS HAS INVESTED OVER FIVE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS TO RESTORE THIS PROPERTY, ELIMINATED CRIME AT THE PROPERTY AND DRAMATICALLY REDUCED CRIME IN THE AREA. THE BUILDING OFFICIALS STATED REASON FOR REVOKING THE CO HERE WAS THAT UPON A RE-REVIEW OF OUR LAND USE STATEMENT, THE DESCRIBED OPERATIONS INDICATE A VIOLATION OF TEXAS PENAL CODE 47.04. SO THERE'S TWO ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR YOU TO EVALUATE TODAY. THE FIRST IS WHAT THE CITY HAS REPEATEDLY FRAMED AS A QUESTION OF LAW. DOES OUR LAND USE STATEMENT SHOW A VIOLATION OF THE PENAL CODE? WE WILL CLEARLY SHOW IT DOES NOT BECAUSE ONE, OUR LAND USE STATEMENT DOES NOT PROVIDE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. ANY EVIDENCE SHOWING A VIOLATION OF THE PENAL CODE AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CONDUCTED NO OTHER DILIGENCE ABOUT OUR OPERATIONS. TWO, THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS OF DA OF DALLAS, WHOSE JURISDICTION INCLUDES OUR SITE. CONSIDERED THE SAME QUESTION BEFORE YOU IN THE TCH CASE CONFIRMED YOUR LEGAL CONCLUSION AND THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT CONFIRMED THAT DECISION CHAMPIONS IS A PRIVATE SOCIAL CLUB JUST LIKE TCH. THE SUPREME COURT CONFIRMED THIS BOARD'S PREVIOUS DETERMINATION THAT TCH H'S OPERATIONS DO NOT VIOLATE THE TEXAS PENAL CODE. NEITHER WOULD CHAMPIONS ONCE WE'VE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THESE THINGS. THE SECOND QUESTION IS WHETHER THE REVOCATION OF OUR CEO BY THE, UH, WAS REQUIRED BY THE DALLAS CITY CODE BECAUSE OF A MISTAKE. THE ANSWER TO BOTH OF THESE CRITICAL QUESTIONS IS NO. WE'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE TREATED FAIRLY AND THE FAIR RESULT IS TO GRANT OUR APPEAL. I'D LIKE TO CALL MY FIRST WITNESS, ISAAC TRUMBO. UH, ANY WITNESSES THAT COME FORWARD, PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. AND AGAIN, I'M I'M CONFIRMING THAT ANY AND ALL WITNESSES HAVE BEEN SWORN IN. OKAY. ALRIGHT. AND HE, THERE WE GO. HE EVEN KNOWS HOW TO RAISE THE PODIUM. OH MY GOSH. I HAVE ONE OF THESE. OH, YOU DO? OKAY. ISAAC TRUMBO. ALL RIGHT. 6 2 0 4 BELMONT AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS. THAT'S MY HOME ADDRESS. I DO LIVE IN DALLAS AND SO DOES MY PARTNER ROY CHOI. OKAY, ONE SECOND. ALRIGHT, MR. MANN? YEAH. ISAAC, WHAT IS YOUR ROLE AT CHAMPIONS SOCIAL CLUB? I'M THE PRESIDENT OF CHAMPIONS AND THE MANAGING PARTNER. UH, BEFORE YOU DECIDED TO OPERATE IN DALLAS, DID YOU CONDUCT DILIGENCE ON THE CITY'S TREATMENT OF COMMERCIALIZED POKER? GENERALLY, MR. MANN, WHEN YOU GET A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE YEP. WE, WE DON'T WORRY. THIS IS NOT GONNA BURN INTO YOUR TIME. MM-HMM . I'M GONNA GIVE YOU PLENTY OF TIME. NO PROBLEM. I REALLY WANNA MAKE SURE WE HEAR EVERYTHING. IT'S ALL AUDIO TAPED, VIDEOTAPED, THERE'S PEOPLE LISTENING, WATCHING AND SO FORTH. SO ASK THAT QUESTION AGAIN. NO PROBLEM. BEFORE YOU DECIDED TO OPERATE IN DALLAS, DID YOU CONDUCT DILIGENCE ON THE CITY'S TREATMENT OF COMMERCIALIZED POKER? GENERALLY? YES. BEFORE WE EMBARKED ON THIS PROJECT, WE WATCHED THE CITY GO THROUGH AN EXTENSIVE PROCESS OF VETTING POKER AS A LEGAL LAND USE. WE WATCHED PUBLIC HEARINGS IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL ON THE ISSUE. WE WATCHED CITY COUNCIL VOTE AND APPROVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT [02:40:01] FOR TEXAS CARDHOUSE. IT WAS IN THAT HEARING THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY TESTIFIED IN SUPPORT OF THE MODEL EXPLAINING TO CITY COUNCIL WHY IT'S LEGAL. WE WERE ALSO AWARE OF AND RELIED ON LAW FIRM OPINION LETTERS THAT TEXAS CARDHOUSE HAS PRESENTED PUBLICLY IN THEIR EFFORTS TO OPERATE POKER, WHICH ARE OCCLUDED IN YOUR FILINGS. WE WATCHED THE CITY CONSIDERING GRANT COS TO MULTIPLE OTHER OPERATORS. THE CITY LAID OUT A PLAYBOOK FOR US, HOW IT WAS TO BE DONE IN DALLAS. AND WE EMBARKED ON THIS PROJECT IN GOOD FAITH THINKING THAT WE ARE BUILDING A BEAUTIFUL BUSINESS THAT WAS GONNA BRING ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND JOB OPPORTUNITIES TO AN AREA THAT NEEDED IT. DID YOU HAVE YOUR OWN DISCUSSIONS WITH CITY OFFICIALS ABOUT YOUR SPECIFIC PLANS TO OPERATE? YES, WE DID. WE SPOKE WITH OUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, KAREN MENDELSON. SHE TOLD US THAT SHE WASN'T AGAINST POKER THAT, AND SHE IN FACT CAST HER VOTE IN FAVOR OF TEXAS CARD HOUSE'S SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SHE SAID SHE WAS AGAINST CRIME AND WE COULD COUNT ON HER FULL SUPPORT IF WE INVESTED IN SECURITY AS WE PROMISED. AND I HOPE YOU HEARD WE HAVE FOLLOWED THROUGH ON THAT COMMITMENT. I PROMISE AND MORE. DID YOU SPEAK, LET, LET ME ASK A QUESTION OF YOU, MR. MANN. AND THIS MAY GO BACK TO YOUR WITNESS. WERE, WAS THIS DISCUSSION THAT YOU HAD, UH, REGARDING THE PREVIOUS CO REQUEST THAT WAS DENIED? OR IS THIS SUBSEQUENT TO THAT CO REQUEST? THE PREVIOUS, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE TIMELINE. YES. I'M TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF THE TIMELINE OF WHICH YOUR WITNESS HAS SAID THAT HE TALKED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY OR HEARD THE CITY ATTORNEY, SUP COS AND THEN TALKED TO COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSSOHN. GIVE YOU SOME DATE TIMELINE SO WE HAVE SOME REFERENCE POINT PLEASE. THIS IS BACK IN 2021 RIGHT NOW. IS THAT YOUR OPINION? YES, CORRECT. OKAY. DID YOU SPEAK TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS ABOUT YOUR PLANS? WE DID. WE SPOKE WITH A PRECINCT CAPTAIN OF DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT'S NORTH CENTRAL DIVISION. SHE WAS GLAD THAT WE'RE WILLING TO TAKE ON THE PROJECT, ALSO CONCERNED WITH AN UPTICK IN CRIME ALONG THE TOLLWAY AND VACANT BUILDINGS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED AS A MAJOR PROBLEM THAT WAS GROWING IN THE AREA. ALL THE OFFICIALS WE SPOKE WITH THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THE ENTIRE PROCESS, THAT WE HAD WATCHED THE CITY GO THROUGH AN EXTENSIVE PROCESS WITH TEXAS CARDHOUSE. THEY WERE ALL AT THAT TIME IN SUPPORT OF BROKER AS A LEGAL USE AT THIS SITE. SO WHY DID YOU PICK THIS SPECIFIC SITE? WE IDENTIFIED THIS SITE FRANKLY BECAUSE IT HAD BECOME A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM FOR NORTH DALLAS. WE THOUGHT WE WERE RESCUING A BELOVED MASSIVE BUILDING THAT HAD FALLEN INTO DISREPAIR THAT NOBODY WAS GONNA TAKE ON BECAUSE OF ITS SIZE AND THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIVING IN THE ATTIC AND IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY AND TENTS BECAUSE OF EVERY BIT OF COPPER RIPPED OUTTA THE BUILDING, GAS LEAKS, DRUG PARAPHERNALIA. THIS SITE WAS A PROBLEM. AND WE FELT THAT WE HAD A BUSINESS MODEL THAT WOULD PROVIDE A SOLUTION THAT COULD JUSTIFY THE INVESTMENT IN A WAY THAT A RESTAURANT NEVER COULD. ISAAC, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ORIGINAL CO APPLICATION WAS DENIED, AT LEAST IN PART FROM POLITICAL INFLUENCE BECAUSE A NEARBY AFFLUENT NEIGHBORHOOD WAS OPPOSED TO IT? YES, I DO. AND IS YOUR BASIS FOR BELIEVING THAT? WELL, WE KNOW THAT ON JUNE 28TH, 2021, THE BEN ENTRY NEIGHBORHOOD HOSTED A TOWN HALL MEETING AT WHICH ONE OF OUR EMPLOYEES WAS PRESENT. COUNCILWOMAN MENDELSOHN SPOKE AT THAT MEETING. SHE SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT OUR ATTENDED USE WAS LEGAL. IN FACT, THESE ARE HER EXACT WORDS. THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO DO IT. AND I DID VOTE FOR THAT BECAUSE IN FACT, I'M GONNA TELL YOU, THE CITY ATTORNEY GAVE US INFORMATION THAT ENCOURAGED EVERYONE TO VOTE FOR IT. AND THERE WERE NO RESIDENTS AND THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION. THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID. SHE TOLD THEM THAT IT WAS ZONED APPROPRIATELY FOR POKER AS A LEGAL USE AND THEY WERE ABSOLUTELY BESIDE THEMSELVES. HELLO, COUNCIL MEMBER. SO AFTER THIS PUBLIC OUTCRY AGAINST YOU, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CITY'S LEGAL POSITION? YEAH. AFTER THIS TOWN HALL, THERE WAS AN ORGANIZED OPPOSITION TO OUR BUSINESS. CAROL MENDELSON, OUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, MOVED FROM AFFIRMING IT IS A LEGAL USE TO BECOMING OPENLY HOSTILE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCING HER DETERMINATION TO SHUT DOWN OUR BUSINESS. ONE SECOND, ONE SECOND. SURE. UH, AND MY QUESTIONS WILL ALWAYS BE, OUR QUESTIONS WILL ALWAYS BE TO THE ATTORNEYS FOR EITHER SIDE. SURE. NEVER TO THE WITNESS. AND THEN YOU CAN DIRECT TO THE WITNESS. MR. MANN, I'M CONFUSED AGAIN ON THE TIMELINE. MM-HMM . UM, UH, IT IS IN THE RECORD THAT THE PREDECESSOR, UH, ENTITY APPLIED FOR A CO AND IT WAS DENIED. SO WERE THESE DISCUSSIONS THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, WHETHER IT BE WITH THE, UH, CITY STAFF, WHETHER IT BE COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSSOHN, GIVE US A FRAME OF BEFORE OR AFTER THAT INITIAL REQUEST? WE'RE STILL BEFORE THE INITIAL REQUEST RIGHT NOW. OKAY. THAT'S, AND WE ARE ABOUT TO TRANSITION TO AFTER. OKAY. AND SO YOU SIR, YOU HAD MENTIONED JUNE 28TH, 2021. CORRECT. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TESTIFYING TO? THAT'S WHAT I'M TESTIFYING TO. OKAY. AND WHAT YOU [02:45:01] JUST TESTIFIED TO IS THAT A COUNCIL MEMBER WENT TO A MEETING THAT WHERE EMPLOYEE OF YOUR COMPANY YES. WITNESSED, HEARD THAT COUNCIL MEMBER SPEAK TO THEM SAYING IT WAS A LEGAL USE. THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. I'M JUST REPEATING THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT. I APPRECIATE IT. MS. HAYDEN HAS A QUESTION. UM, WHEN WAS THE PROPERTY PURCHASED? WHEN DID YOU CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY? I BELIEVE 2023. 20. I, I, YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M NOT SURE. I'D HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT. OKAY. SO LET'S, YOU HAVE PLENTY OF PEOPLE THAT CAN FIND OUT. WE'D LIKE TO KNOW THAT PLEASE. SURE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO KNOW NOW. I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S A VALID QUESTION. YEAH. THAT MS. HAYDEN HAS. ABSOLUTELY. MS. HAYDEN, DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? IT FOR NOW? OKAY. PLEASE IF MR. MANN, IF YOU'D GET THAT TO US. OKAY. SO I'M GONNA GO BACK TO MR. MANN NOW. OKAY. AGAIN, WE WE'RE GONNA ASK QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY. YEAH, NO PROBLEM. ALRIGHT, ISAAC, SO YOU PICKED THIS SITE IN 2021 THAT ALL THOSE THINGS HAPPENED. YOU HAD A CO DENIED, YOU APPEALED TO THIS BOARD. SO WHY DID YOU DECIDE TO MAKE A NEW CO APPLICATION LAST YEAR? ALRIGHT, SO ONCE WE APPLIED THE DE CITY, THE CITY DECIDED TO CHANGE ITS POKER, ITS POSITION ON POKER ENTIRELY. AND THE OTHER OPERATORS IN DALLAS HAD THEIR CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY REVOKED. THE BOARD RULED IN FAVOR FINDING THAT THE CITY HAD AIRED. AND THAT ISSUE WENT TO THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT CONFIRMED THAT THIS BOARD GOT IT RIGHT. THE CITY ALREADY HAS SAID NUMEROUS TIMES THAT THE ISSUE GOING IN FRONT OF THE APPELLATE COURT IS THE EXACT ISSUE THAT THE APPELLATE COURT AS OUR ISSUE. IT SAID THAT THEIR DECISION WOULD BE DISPOSITIVE. IT'S, YOUR COMMENTS ARE TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER? YES. NOT TO THE OTHER APPEAL. I APOLOGIZE. THE COMMENTS ARE TO ME, SO PLEASE LOOK AT ME AND SPEAK TO ME EVEN IF ANOTHER QUESTION'S ASKED. OKAY. SURE. SO LET'S START OVER HERE. I APOLOGIZE. OKAY. IT IS NICE TO DIALOGUE WITH THE CITY. THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. SO THE CITY SAID THAT THIS, THAT THE DECISION OF THE APPELLATE COURT WOULD BE DISPOSITIVE. IN FACT, IT ASKED FOR A MOTION TO STAY OUR INITIAL APPEAL BECAUSE OF THAT EXACT ISSUE. AT THAT POINT, IT WAS TIME TO REAPPLY ONCE THE APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMED THE DECISION THAT THIS BOARD MADE MULTIPLE TIMES AND OUR CO WAS GRANTED BY THE CITY AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN. ISAAC, WE'RE GONNA PLAY A SILENT VIDEO JUST TO SHOW THE INTERIOR OF YOUR SPACE THAT YOU FINISHED OUT. WHILE I ASKED THESE NEXT FEW, UM, ASSUMING IT WORKS, CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE APPLICATION PROCESS YOU WENT THROUGH THAT LED TO THE INITIAL GRANTING OF THIS NEW CO APPLICATION? SURE. IT WAS LONG AND COMPLEX VAULT, MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OF EXTENSIVE BACK AND FORTH WITH THE CITY. UH, WE STARTED TO GET OUR GREEN TAGS, INSPECTIONS, PERMITS. IT PROGRESSED WITHOUT ANY MAJOR ISSUES AND WE TOOK STEPS TO PREPARE TO OPEN. WE HIRED PEOPLE, THEY LEFT OTHERS. IS THIS THE APPLICATION PROCESS THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING TO PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE LAND USE STATEMENT THAT YOU SUBMITTED? OR IS IT AFTER THE DATE OF THE LAND USE STATEMENT? AFTER THE APPLICATION WAS MADE, BECAUSE THE LAND USE STATEMENT IS DATED OCTOBER 7TH, 2024. SO THIS DUE DILIGENCE, THIS APPLICATION PROCESS THAT YOU HAD SPOKE TO SIX MONTHS BEFORE OR AFTER OCTOBER 7TH? AFTER. AFTER. OKAY. THIS, THERE'S A PROCESS. ONCE YOU APPLY FOR THE CO AND YOUR APPLICATION IS ACCEPTED, THERE'S STILL A NUMBER OF HURDLES THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH. COME TO COMING TO THE BUILDING, MAKING SURE YOU MEET THE CRITERIA FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY FIRES, ET CETERA. WE WENT THROUGH THOSE PROCESS WHERE WE, WE WERE BEING ISSUED OUR GREEN TAGS AND WE BEGAN THE PROCESS OF HIRING, UH, WE, EXCUSE ME, PREPARING TO OPEN. WE HIRED PEOPLE, THEY LEFT OTHER JOBS. THEY MOVED HERE FROM OTHER STATES IN SOME CASES. DID ANY CITY STAFF MEMBERS EXPRESS CONCERNS TO YOU ABOUT YOUR PLANNED POKER OPERATIONS DURING THIS REVIEW PROCESS? NO, THEY DIDN'T. ISAAC, DO YOU THINK THIS NEW CO WAS DENIED OR REVOKED, EXCUSE ME, AS A RESULT OF THE SAME POLITICAL PRESSURE THAT YOU EXPERIENCED IN 2021? I DO. HOW MANY EMPLOYEES DO YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW AT CHAMPIONS 35. IF YOUR CO REMAINS REVOKED, WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE FOLKS? IT WOULD PUT US IN A REALLY TOUGH POSITION. I WANNA SUPPORT OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE VERY BEST WAY THAT I CAN. I'M SURE YOU'VE HEARD THAT HEARING FROM THEM. IT, FRANKLY, I HOPE IT DOESN'T COME TO THAT. CAN ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC SIMPLY WALK IN TO CHAMPIONS AND HAVE DINNER OR PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF YOUR OFFERINGS? NO. YOU HAVE TO BE A MEMBER. OKAY. ON SEPTEMBER 5TH, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT CONSIDERED THE ABILITY OF TEXAS CARDHOUSE TO OPERATE IN DALLAS OF 2025, SEPTEMBER 5TH, 2020 2025. YES, SIR. I WANNA GIVE OUR YEARS STRAIGHT HERE 11 DAYS AGO. YES SIR. THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERED THE ABILITY OF TEXAS CARDHOUSE TO OPERATE IN DALLAS AND ALLOWED THEM TO CONTINUE. HAVE YOU DETERMINED HOW CHAMPIONS WOULD OPERATE POKER? YES. WOULD YOUR OPERATIONS [02:50:01] BE EXACTLY THE SAME AS TCH PRESENTED ITS POKER OPERATIONS TO THIS BOARD? YES, IT WOULD. TO BE CLEAR, TCH ESTABLISHED THAT THEY WOULD NOT TAKE ANY PERCENTAGE OF A PLAYER'S WINNINGS. WOULD YOU TAKE A RAKE? WE HAVE NEVER AND WOULD NEVER DO ANYTHING THAT CONSTITUTES A RAKE. ISAAC, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL NOTED IN ITS MATERIALS FOR THIS APPEAL THAT THE CITY OF HOUSTON SUPPORTS ITS POSITION. DON'T YOU OPERATE A SOCIAL CLUB WITH POKER IN HOUSTON UNDER A VALIDLY ISSUED CO FROM THAT CITY? YES, WE DO. AND HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH HOUSTON? WELL, MAYOR TURNER MAY REST IN PEACE HELPED US SPECIFICALLY WITH OUR PERMITTING PROCESS. HE CAME TO OUR GRAND OPENING, SPOKEN AND SPEAKING AND GLOWING SUPPORT OF OUR USE AND OF OUR BUSINESS. OUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, AS YOU HEARD IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY, STATED THAT WE ARE THE GOLD STANDARD AND THEY'RE GLAD THAT SOMEONE HAS COME TO HOUSTON THAT THEY CAN POINT TO AND SAY THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE. OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. MANN. UH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE BRINGING UP THE ISSUE OF HOUSTON. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE HOUSTON AMA AMICUS BRIEF. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY DID FILE A BRIEF WITH THE APPEALS COURT OR IF IT WAS THE TEXAS, UH, SUPREME COURT. UM, HOW DO YOU RECONCILE, AND MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE CITY, BUT I'LL ASK IT TO START WITH YOU SINCE YOU BROUGHT THIS ISSUE UP. HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE SAID THAT THEY'RE AGAINST CARDHOUSE BECAUSE THEY SAY THEY'RE GAMBLING UNDER THE PENAL CODE AND SO FORTH, YET THEY'VE ISSUED A CI CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND THEY HAVEN'T REVOKED THAT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY'RE LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO ISSUE THEM BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS PENAL CODE. MR. HAITZ HAS A QUESTION. YES. UM, MR. MANN, UH, IN ASKING PRECEDENT TO THIS QUESTION, I'M NOT CONCEDING THE LEGALITY OR OR NOT OF, OF WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO DO AT THAT LOCATION. SURE. I'M SIMPLY ASKING A GENERAL QUESTION. IF AN ACTIVITY IS DETERMINED AT SOME LEVEL TO BE LEGAL IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, IS IT'S YOUR POSITION THAT SUCH AN ACTIVITY WOULD BE LEGAL ANYWHERE AND ANY PLACE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS? OR CAN RESTRICTIONS BE PLACED ON WHERE SUCH ACTIVITIES CAN BE, CAN TAKE PLACE? OH, RESTRICTIONS CAN ABSOLUTELY BE PLACED ON IT THROUGH ZONING. RIGHT. UH, BUT OF COURSE OUR USE IS ALLOWED BY THE ZONING OF THIS SITE TODAY. IN FACT, THE CITY INITIATED A PROCESS TO AMEND THEIR ZONING REGULATIONS SO THAT OUR USE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A DISCRETIONARY ZONING PROCESS. AND THEY PUT THAT ON HOLD AND HAVE NOT COMPLETED IT. SO OUR ZONING STILL ALLOWS THIS USE AS IT DID IN 2021. I I, ACCORDING TO THE BRIEFS WE WERE GIVEN, THEY, THE CITY DID NOT PUT IT ON HOLD. THIS, THE ZAC ZONING OR ORDINANCE ADVISOR CAN BE VOTED IT DOWN UNANIMOUSLY ACCORDING TO THE BRIEFS. NOW I'M GONNA BE ASKING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ABOUT THAT, BUT THE, WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR RECORD SHOWS ZAC OPERATION. I THINK IT WAS THE SEVEN TO ZERO DENIAL OF THE CONSIDERATION OF THAT. BUT I WILL ASK THAT LATER. SO GO AHEAD. YEAH, I THINK THE, THE, THE POINT OF MY QUESTION IS TO UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCE OF A BUSINESS LOCATED IN HOUSTON UNDER HOUSTON'S OH, SURE. VERY UNIQUE ZONING CODES. UH, THEY DON'T HAVE NON-EXISTENT YEAH. UM, TO, TO ANY PLACE ELSE IN TEXAS. YEAH, BECAUSE THE STATUTE AT ISSUE HERE IS A STATE STATUTE, TEXAS PENAL CODE 47 0 4. IT APPLIES TO A SITE IN HOUSTON IN THE EXACT SAME WAY. IT APPLIES TO A SITE IN DALLAS. AND THAT IS THE REASON THE BUILDING OFFICIAL GAVE FOR REVOKING OUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. SO IT IS THE SAME LEGAL QUESTION IN A STATUTE THAT APPLIES TO BOTH LOCATIONS. IT'S A STATE STATUTE CONTINUE. MR. MANN, UH, I'M ALMOST DONE WITH YOU ISAAC, UH, IN HOUSTON. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CHARGED WITH A VIOLATION OF THE PENAL CODE BY THE HARRIS COUNTY DA OR CITED BY THAT CITY FOR HAVING AN ILLEGAL LAND USE IN VIOLATION OF THE PENAL CODE? NO, THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR ISAAC. THANK YOU MR. MANN. ACCORDING TO OUR RULES, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL GETS THE EQUAL AMOUNT OF TIME TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS. MS. RODRIGUEZ? THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. A LITTLE BIT CLOSER ON THE MICROPHONE. OKAY. WE WANT TO HEAR EVERY WORD? UH, NO, I'M JUST GONNA STAND UP. OH, THAT'S FINE. OKAY. SO EVERYBODY CAN HEAR ME? ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU MR. TRUMBO AND STACY RODRIGUEZ, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. SO THERE WE GO. MR. TRUMBO AND STACY RODRIGUEZ WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, UM, THE OWNERSHIP OF YOUR ENTITY HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE YOU INITIALLY APPLIED FOR A CO IN 2021. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THE LOCATION, [02:55:01] UH, HAS NOT CHANGED, OBVIOUSLY. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. AND I, I NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE QUESTION AND THE RESPONSE ARE BOTH ON THE MIC. SO EITHER PUT ANOTHER MIC UP THERE. THERE WE GO. THANK YOU. HERE WE GO. DAVID, IF YOU WOULD FACILITATE THIS, 'CAUSE I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE TALKING. LET HIM PULL IT. THANK YOU. ONE SECOND. ARE THESE BOTH WORKING SIMULTANEOUSLY? THERE WE GO. ALRIGHT, WE GOT LOT OF MICROPHONES NOW. ALRIGHT, SO IF YOU WOULD GO BACK TO MAKE SURE. THANK YOU MS. DAVIS. WE WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S HEARD BY EVERYONE, INCLUDING THOSE LISTENING. THANK YOU. DO YOU WANT ME TO ASK ALL OF MY QUESTIONS? YES. OKAY. MM-HMM . OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR. UH, THE OWNERSHIP OF CHAMPIONS OR CONTENDER HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE 2021, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND THE LOCATION OF THE FACILITY HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE 2021 WHEN YOU INITIALLY APPLIED FOR A CO CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THE PROPOSED USE AT THE LOCATION OF COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE FEATURING POKER HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE YOU INITIALLY APPLIED IN 2021, CORRECT? I BELIEVE SO. AND YOUR INITIAL CO APPLICATION WAS DENIED BY THIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AFTER A FULL HEARING IN 2021, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND YOU THEN FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE CITY, AND THAT SUIT IS PENDING IN THE ONE 93RD DISTRICT COURT IN DALLAS. RIGHT. WE AVAILED OURSELVES OF THE APPEAL PROCESS, YES. RIGHT. AND SO FAR THAT LAWSUIT HAS BEEN ON HOLD WHILE THE TEXAS CARD HOUSE LITIGATION HAS PROCEEDED THROUGH THE COURTS. RIGHT. THE MOTION TO STAY IN THAT LAWSUIT, IN THAT MOTION TO STAY THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID THAT THE ISSUE, OUR ISSUE WAS THE EXACT ISSUE. I'M SORRY, MY QUESTION WAS, THIS LAWSUIT HAS BEEN ON HOLD, CORRECT? YES OR NO? YES. THANK YOU. UH, WHY DID YOU REAPPLY FOR A CO IN OCTOBER OF 2024? UH, GIVEN THAT THE CITY HAD NOT CHANGED ITS LEGAL POSITION. TO GO BACK TO WHAT I WAS SAYING, THE CITY SAID THAT THE MOTION TO STAY IN, THE MOTION TO STAY SAYING WE'RE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO WAIT FOR YOUR DAY IN COURT. AND THAT MOTION TO STAY SAID, THE REASON WHY WE NEEDED TO WAIT FOR OUR DAY IN COURT WAS BECAUSE THE EXACT ISSUE, OUR EXACT ISSUE WAS GOING IN FRONT OF THE APPELLATE COURT. IN FACT, THEY SAID THE SAME THING AT THIS HEARING PREVIOUSLY, BACK IN JUNE. AND AGAIN, THAT APPELLATE COURT DECISION WOULD BE DISPOSITIVE, ACTUALLY SAID WILL BE DISPOSITIVE. WHO ARE YOU QUOTING RIGHT NOW? I'M QUOTING THE CITY ATTORNEY. SO A PERSON REPRESENTING THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. I'M VOTING THEIR BRIEFING IN THEIR MOTION TO STAY IN THE MOTION FOR ABATEMENT OF OUR APPEAL THAT SHE JUST ASKED ME ABOUT. IT'S CALLED ABATED, I THINK. I'M SORRY, I'M NOT A LAWYER. OKAY. I JUST WANNA, I WANNA UNDERSTAND WHO YOU'RE QUOTING. YES. 'CAUSE YOU'RE SAYING, THEY SAID, AND I'M, I'M QUOTING THE CITY AND MAYBE I SHOULD BE QUOTING THE, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, I'M NOT SURE. BUT IT WAS THE, IT WAS THE, THE BRIEFING TO, TO THE, TO THE MOTION TO STAY TO THE DISTRICT COURT ABOUT OUR CASE SAYING THAT THE ISSUE WAS IDENTICAL. THAT THE, THE DECISION OF THE APPELLATE COURT WOULD BE DISPOSITIVE, WILL BE DISPOSITIVE. AND WHEN THE APPELLATE COURT SAID THAT THE DECISION THAT THIS PANEL MADE MULTIPLE TIMES THIS BOARD HEARD THE, HEARD THE ISSUE OF TEXAS CARDHOUSE AND SHUFFLE 2 1 4 AND IT SAID, POKER CAN BE LEGAL. THERE ARE APPLICATIONS THAT CAN BE LEGAL, AND THE APPELLATE COURT SAID, THAT IS CORRECT. AT THAT POINT, IT LAID OUT A LEGAL FRAMEWORK THAT WHERE IT MADE PERFECT SENSE TO REAPPLY FOR OUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. AND WE DID. AND YOU KNOW WHAT? OUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WAS GRANTED BY THE CITY A AFTER AN EXTENSIVE REVIEW PROCESS. SO BEFORE YOU GO ON FOR THAT, I'M TRYING TO FOLLOW YOUR TIMELINE. SURE. IS YOUR EXISTING APPEAL AT THE JU AT THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE INITIAL, UH, CLAIM STILL PENDING AS OF TODAY? IT'S STILL PENDING. WE WAITED. OKAY. AND THANK YOU. AND MR. TRUMBO, GOING BACK TO MY QUESTION, THE CITY HAD NOT CHANGED ITS LEGAL POSITION AS OF OCTOBER OF 2024 AND IN FACT STILL HASN'T CHANGED ITS LEGAL POSITION AS WE STAND HERE TODAY. CORRECT. YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT AT THE TIME WHEN THE APPELLATE COURT MADE A DECISION THAT THE CITY SAID WE'LL BE DISPOSITIVE, OUR NEXT STEP WAS TO FILE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, WHICH HAD ACCEPTED. SO IT APPEARED TO ME THAT THE CITY HAD CHANGED ITS POSITION BECAUSE THE APPELLATE COURT, WHICH IS A PRECEDENT SETTING BODY, AFFIRMED THE DECISION THAT THIS PANEL MADE MULTIPLE TIMES. WELL, WE'LL GET TO WHAT THE APPELLATE COURT SAID IN [03:00:01] A MOMENT. MY QUESTION IS THE CITY OF DALLAS, AS OF THE TIME THAT YOU FILED YOUR CO APPLICATION IN OCTOBER OF 2024, HAD FILED NOTHING AFTER THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION INDICATING THAT WE HAD CHANGED OUR LEGAL POSITION. YOU HAD ALREADY SAID NUMEROUS TIMES THAT THE APPELLATE COURT DECISION WILL BE DISPOSITIVE. THE APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMED THIS PANEL'S DECISION MULTIPLE TIMES. WE FOLLOWED THE GUIDELINES LAID OUT BY THE CITY. WE APPLIED FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. WE HAD OUR USE ON BOTH THE APPLICATION AND THE LAND USE. WE IN THE SECOND LINE OF OUR APPLICATION IS A REFERENCE TO OUR INITIAL DENIAL. WE WENT THROUGH A PROTRACTED PROCESS OF PERMITTING AND, AND, AND WERE ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. SO, MR. TRUMBO, UM, YOU WERE AWARE THAT THE CITY WAS APPEALING THE COURT OF APPEALS RULING TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT AT THE TIME THAT YOU APPLIED FOR A CO IN OCTOBER OF 2024, CORRECT? I DON'T KNOW IF, I DON'T KNOW IF I WAS AWARE AT THAT TIME. OKAY. OKAY. UH, HOW, HOW DOES YOUR MEMBERSHIP WORK AND WHAT ARE THE FEES THAT YOUR MEMBERS PAY TO BE A MEMBER OF YOUR CLUB? OUR MEMBERSHIP IS, IT'S MEMBER BASED. YOU HAVE TO MAKE AN APPLICATION TO BECOME A MEMBER. YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH A ROBUST PROCESS ACCEPTING WHERE WE TAKE A LOT OF PERSONAL INFORMATION. WE TAKE, WE KEEP PHOTOS ON HAND. WE KEEP YOUR, ALL OF YOUR IDENTIFICATION AND RECORDS. YOU HAVE TO SIGN A VERY THOROUGH MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT, A CLUB CHARTER, A RULES OF CONDUCT, AND, AND AT THE, AT THE TIME OR CURRENTLY AS AS IT STANDS YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE TO PAY MEMBERSHIP FEES THAT I HOPE OUR MEMBERS WILL UNDERSTAND ARE GONNA CONTINUE TO GO UP AS WE GAIN A TRACTION AND OUR MEMBERSHIP ROSTER. GROSS. WHAT ARE YOUR FEES CURRENTLY? CURRENTLY $100 A MONTH OR $1,000 ANNUALLY. IT'S A GREAT DEAL FOR THE TIME BEING. HOWEVER, I, UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR, WHILE THIS HAS BEEN ISSUES BEING LOOKED AT VERY CAREFULLY, YOU CAN SIGN UP FOR FREE. WE'RE WAIVING MEMBERSHIP FEES FOR THE TIME BEING. YOU STATE IN YOUR MATERIALS THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL REVOKED YOUR CO QUOTE, UNQUOTE WITHOUT EVIDENCE, BUT IT'S NOT A SECRET THAT YOU INTEND TO AND PLAN TO OFFER POKER GAMES AND POKER TOURNAMENTS AT YOUR LOCATION, CORRECT? NO. IT'S, IT WAS IN OUR LAND USE AND IT WAS IN OUR THANK YOU AND APPLICATION. THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT YOU HAVE REFERRED TO IN YOUR BRIEFING AND IN YOUR TESTIMONY, UH, THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WERE NOT, WELL, THEY WERE NOT MADE IN THE ONE WEEK PERIOD BETWEEN THE TIME THE CO WAS ISSUED AND THE TIME IT WAS REVOKED. IS THAT RIGHT? THEY WERE, THOSE THEY WERE MADE IN THE YEARS PROCEEDING ARE, BY THE WAY, OUR, OUR CO APPLICATION WAS ACCEPTED IN OCTOBER. IT, SO THERE WAS A ONE WEEK PERIOD OCTOBER OF WHAT YEAR? 2024. I WANT US TO PUT YEARS ON THIS, EXCUSE ME, BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA, BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE IN TWO YEAR, TWO DIFFERENT YEAR CORRECTIONS. SEVERAL YEARS. 'CAUSE SINCE I HEAR REFERENCE BACK TO 21. THAT'S RIGHT. LET'S ALL PUT YEARS ON THE TESTIMONY. I THINK I KNOW WHAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE MADE ON THE PROPERTY AND BEFORE OUR INITIAL CO WAS DENIED WHEN THE CITY HAD NUMEROUS TIMES TOLD US THAT THE USE WAS LEGAL AT THE SITE AFTER TEXAS CARDHOUSE HAD GONE THROUGH A PROTRACTED PROCESS, VETTING IT IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL. AFTER CITY COUNCIL, INCLUDING OUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, VOTED IN FAVOR OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. WE WERE OVER A MILLION DOLLARS INTO THE INVESTMENT AT THE TIME WHEN THEY INITIALLY DENIED OUR CO I'M SORRY, I I DON'T WANNA INTERRUPT YOU, BUT I HAVE LIMITED TIME TO, TO ASK YOU MY QUESTIONS, BUT APOLOGIES MS. RODRIGUEZ, I'LL GIVE YOU UNLIMITED TIME. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. I, I WILL BE FAIR TO BOTH SIDES. OKAY. THANK YOU. JUST AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT REDUNDANT, I'M JUST TRYING TO BE COGNIZANT OF THE TIME, SO I APPRECIATE IT. JUST AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT REDUNDANT. OKAY. I'LL DO MY BEST. SO MY QUESTION WAS THE IMPROVEMENTS. YES. YOU APPLIED FOR THE CO OCTOBER 24TH, 2024. YOU TESTIFIED A MOMENT AGO THAT YOU WERE MAKING IMPROVEMENTS STARTING FROM THAT TIME UNTIL THE CO WAS ISSUED OR UNTIL IT WAS REVOKED. I GUESS, UH, MY QUESTION IS, LOOKING AT THE ONE WEEK PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN THE ISSUANCE OF THE CO AND THE REVOCATION, MOST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS HAD ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND DURING THE TIME THAT YOU WERE MAKING THOSE IMPROVEMENTS, ALL OF THE LITIGATION CASES WERE STILL PENDING? CORRECT? MY UNDERSTANDING, I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT THE APPELLATE COURT, I, MY QUESTION IS, IF YOU DON'T [03:05:01] KNOW THEN JUST SAY YOU DON'T KNOW. MY QUESTION IS THE LITIGATION CASES WERE PENDING, YES OR NO? I BELIEVE SO. OKAY. YOU TESTIFIED, UH, AND STATED IN YOUR MATERIALS THAT YOU RELIED ON THE CITY TELLING YOU THAT THE USE WAS LEGAL. UH, THAT IT WAS OKAY, BUT IN FACT, THE CITY HAS CHALLENGED LEGALLY EVERY SINGLE POKER CLUB CO APPLICATION BY EITHER DENYING IT OR AT FIRST GRANTING IT AND THEN REVOKING IT WHEN IT WAS DETERMINED IT WAS ISSUED AN ERROR. THE CITY HAS CHALLENGED EVERY CO APPLICATION FOR A POKER CLUB. CORRECT. SUBSEQUENT TO OUR MULTIMILLION DOLLAR INVESTMENT, THE CITY CHANGED ITS OPINION APPARENTLY BECAUSE OF PUBLIC PRESSURE. THE, YOU KNOW WHAT THE, THE, AND DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, THERE WAS A BEAUTIFUL SLIDE OF A NEWSLETTER THAT WAS POSTED. I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THIS. IT, THAT, THAT NEWSLETTER THANKED CITY OFFICIALS, CITY STAFF, AND THE PUBLIC FOR HELPING TO STOP US, GET OUR INITIAL CO. KARA MENDELSSOHN TOOK CREDIT FOR LEADING THE CHARGE TO STOP OUR BUSINESS IN THAT NEWSLETTER. AND THAT WAS BEFORE WE EVEN HAD TIME TO APPEAL TO THIS BODY. I'M NOT, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT PUBLIC PRESSURE IS THE REASON WHY THE CITY CHANGED ITS POSITION AND TRIED TO STOP OUR MULTIMILLION DOLLAR INVESTMENT AFTER BEING FOR IT. I KNOW IT BECAUSE OUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBER HAS VERY PUBLICLY, VERY OPENLY TAKEN CREDIT FOR IT AND THEY PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN THEMSELVES. MY QUESTION WAS YES OR NO, HAS THE CITY CHALLENGED EVERY SINGLE POKER CLUB CO APPLICATION? I DON'T KNOW ABOUT EVERY SINGLE ONE. I KNOW OF AT LEAST THREE THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED SINCE OURS WAS DENIED. WHICH ONES ARE YOU REFERRING TO? THREE THAT WERE ISSUED. WHAT ARE THEY? ONE IS CALLED PEAK SOCIAL AND IT OPERATED FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS BEFORE IT ULTIMATELY WENT OUT OF BUSINESS, BUT IT OPERATED IN THE FULL LIGHT OF DAY ADVERTISING, FACEBOOK, ET CETERA. UM, ANOTHER IS CALLED PH SOCIAL, FORMERLY CALLED POKER HOUSE. THEY HAD AN ISSUE WHERE I, I I BELIEVE THEIR CO HAD AN DIDN'T, UH, I'M NOT SURE WHY IT WAS REVOKED, BUT IT WASN'T REVOKED FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT TEXAS CARD HOUSE AND SHUFFLE 2 1 4 WERE. UM, ANYWAY, THEY REVED IT WAS REVOKED FOR AN ILLEGAL LAND USE. OKAY, GOT IT. WELL, THEY'VE NOW SUBSEQUENTLY REOPENED ADVERTISING. WE COULD ALL GO DOWN AND PLAY POKER RIGHT AFTER THIS HEARING IF YOU ALLALL WANT TO. YEAH. BUT YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF, UM, WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE GOING ON WITHIN THE CITY TO ADDRESS THAT SITUATION. ARE YOU, YOU'RE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS THAT THE CITY'S JUST LETTING IT HAPPEN. I'M NOT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS THAT PEOPLE CALLED THE CITY AND REACHED OUT TO CITY SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE ISSUE BEFORE IT OPENED AND, AND IT WAS CLOSED DOWN BY THE CITY, BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE? NO, THIS IS IN JUNE. THEY REOPENED ADVERTISING POKER. OPERATING POKER. WHAT, WHAT'S THE NAME OF THAT PH? SOCIAL. YOU COULD LOOK 'EM UP ON FACEBOOK. WELL, I'M NOT GONNA LOOK AT FACEBOOK. OKAY. IN THE, DURING THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. OKAY. APOLOGIES, DIVIDUAL, YOU CAME UP AND SAID THERE WERE TWO OTHER POKERGO CLUBS IN DALLAS APPROVED WITH THE CO IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR. YOU'RE SAYING ONE OF 'EM IS PH SOCIAL? UH, YES. DO YOU HAVE THE NAME OF THE OTHER? I THINK IT'S CALLED SPORTSBOOK. I'M NOT SURE. WELL, I'LL ASK WHEN WE GET TO THE CITY'S PORTION. I'M GONNA ASK THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ABOUT THIS TOO. , BUT OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, MR. TRUMBO, YOU TESTIFIED A MOMENT AGO THAT, UH, AT A MEETING WITH COUNCIL MEMBER KARA MENDELSOHN, SHE INDICATED THAT SHE WAS IN FAVOR OF POKER. SHE JUST WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF CRIME. DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY? I DO. ARE YOU AWARE THAT SHE ABSOLUTELY REFUTES WHAT YOU JUST TESTIFIED ABOUT? THIS IS THE FIRST I'VE HEARD THAT SHE'S ABSOLUTELY REFUTES IT. OKAY. UM, ASSUME THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO OPEN AND HAVE POKER. YOU ARE NOT GUARANTEEING TODAY THAT YOUR CUSTOMERS WILL NOT BE PROSECUTED BY THE COLLIN COUNTY DA'S OFFICE FOR ILLEGAL GAMBLING. ARE YOU, CAN YOU ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN? YOU, IF, IF YOU ARE ALLOWED TO OPEN AND HAVE POKER YEAH. YOU'RE NOT GUARANTEEING HERE TODAY THAT THE, THAT YOUR CUSTOMERS WILL NOT BE PROSECUTED FOR ILLEGAL GAMBLING BY THE COLLIN COUNTY DA'S OFFICE. ARE YOU? HOW COULD I MAKE THAT GUARANTEE? SO NO, YOU'RE NOT. NO, I'M NOT. OKAY. OKAY. I'LL PASS THE WITNESS. THANK YOU. UH, CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES, THE, UM, UH, APPLICANT IS ALLOWED TO REDIRECT. OKAY. AND AGAIN, UH, THE RULES HAVE NUMBERS TO 'EM. I'M, I'M GONNA BE GENEROUS TO MAKE SURE BOTH SIDES HAVE ADEQUATE TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS AS WELL AS THE PANEL MR. MANN. SURE. SO ISAAC, JUST TO CLARIFY, YOUR, YOUR LITIGATION IS PENDING THAT LITIGATION CENTERS ON A CO APPLICATION IN 2021 THAT WAS DENIED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. CORRECT? [03:10:01] CAN YOU ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN? YOUR CO APPLICATION IN 2021 WAS DENIED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL? YES. YOUR CO APPLICATION IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR WAS APPROVED? YES. BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL? YES, IT WAS. SO THE FACTS OF THE TWO ARE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT. FAIR. FAIR. OKAY. REPEAT THAT AGAIN MR. MANN. SO THE 2021 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF YOUR ONGOING LITIGATION INVOLVED A CO APPLICATION THAT WAS DENIED. IT WAS NEVER APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THE CO APPLICATION THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPEAL WAS APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, CORRECT? CORRECT. THANK YOU. OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. MANN. UH, AND THIS WILL GO TO YOU, TO YOUR WITNESS. UM, WHEN THE APPLICANT MADE APPLICATION TO THE CITY, AND PART OF OUR, PART OF OUR JOURNEY IS TO GET TO FACTS. WHEN THE APP, WHEN THE APPLICANT MADE THE APPLICATION TO THE CITY, UH, I ASSUME WAS IT OCTOBER 7TH? I'M LOOKING AT THE ORIGINAL LETTER. THIS WAS IN YOUR BRIEF? YEP. ON PAGE 63 OF YOUR BRIEF. IT WAS OCTOBER. THE CITY RECEIVED THE APPLICATION BY MY NOTES ON OCTOBER 16TH, 2024. OKAY. WELL, I'M, I'M LOOKING AT YOUR LETTER. A LETTER CONTENDER DALLAS, LLC. YEAH. SIGNED BY ROY CHOI. UH, AND IT, SO WHAT THAT, THAT LETTER IS, WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT DATE? THAT IS ONE PIECE OF THE REQUIRED MATERIAL FOR THE APPLICATION. THERE'S ALSO FLOOR PLANS AND EVERYTHING. OKAY. SO IT WAS PROBABLY SIGNED, THE OTHER MATERIALS WERE GATHERED. THE FULL APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED ON OCTOBER 16TH. HOLD ON A SECOND. OCTOBER 16TH, 2024. 24. YES SIR. SO, UH, AND UH, I'LL ASK THIS TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL LATER, BUT I'M GONNA ASK YOU NOW AS WELL, WHAT'S THE PROCESS THAT YOU WENT THROUGH REPRESEN AND WAS IT YOU OR WAS IT SOMEONE ELSE? SORRY, THAT WENT THROUGH THE APPLICATION PROCESS. YEAH. 'CAUSE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO TODAY IS DID THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIR IN THEIR DECISION? YEP. SO IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHO DID WHAT, WHEN, AND WHY. MY NEXT WITNESS IS THE CONSULTANT WHO PROCESSED THE SERIAL APPLICATION. VERY GOOD. YOU'RE AHEAD OF ME. I'M AHEAD OF YOU. I'M SORRY. YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY. BECAUSE I'M INTERESTED IN THE TIMELINE AND WHAT, WHO SAID TO WHAT? YEP. WHO SAID TO WHO? OKAY. OKAY. PROCEED. MR. MANN. ISAAC, THE MONTHLY MEMBERSHIP FEE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POKER. IN OTHER WORDS, SOMEONE WHO PAYS THAT IS NOT PAYING TO PLAY POKER AND THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO PLAY POKER. IS THAT CORRECT? THEY'RE PAYING THAT TO CONT AS THEIR DUES AS A, AS A CLUB MEMBER, WHETHER OR NOT THEY AVAIL THEMSELVES OF ANY OF OUR AMENITIES. OKAY. MR. MANN, I HAVE A QUESTION. HOW CAN YOU, AS THE APPLICANT VIEW IT A PRIVATE CLUB WITHOUT A MEMBERSHIP FEE? NOW, MAYBE IT'S MY DEFINITION OF A PRIVATE CLUB REQUIRES ADDITIONAL THINGS, BUT IT STRIKES ME ODD THAT YOU'RE SAYING YOU AS THE APPLICANT ARE SAYING IT'S A PRIVATE CLUB, BUT THERE'S NOT A FEE THERE IS THERE'S A HUNDRED NO. THAT YOUR WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT THERE'S NO FEE CURRENTLY. NO. HE TESTIFIED THAT IT'S CURRENTLY A HUNDRED DOLLARS A MONTH OR A THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR AND THAT IT WILL GO UP OVER TIME AS THEY CAME OUT. NO, HE DID NOT. WELL HE CAN, I'M SORRY. HE, DID YOU NOT SAY YOU CURRENTLY DO NOT CHARGE A MEMBERSHIP FEE? WE MADE THAT DETERMINATION. I DID. DID YOU NOT? WE'RE NOT GONNA BE REDUNDANT HERE. SURE DID. DID YOU NOT TESTIFY THAT YOU CURRENTLY DO NOT CHARGE A MEMBERSHIP FEE? I TESTIFIED THAT THERE IS A CURRENT, THAT CURRENTLY THERE IS A MEMBERSHIP FEE THAT WE ARE WAIVING WHILE THIS HEARING IS GOING ON WHILE WE DON'T HAVE A LIQUOR LICENSE BECAUSE THE CITY IS HELD UP THE PROCESS OF OUR TABC. AND SO YOU CURRENTLY DO NOT, YOU CURRENTLY DO NOT CHARGE A MEMBERSHIP FEE? CORRECT. ALRIGHT, SO RESPOND. MR. MANN REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. HOW IS THAT INCONSISTENT WITH A PRIVATE CLUB OR MAYBE MY DEFINITION? THAT'S MY DEFINITION. SO EVERYONE WHO TO BECOME A MEMBER, THEY HAVE TO MAKE AN APPLICATION, CORRECT? YES. AND YOU HAVE TO PROVE, APPROVE THE APPLICATION, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND FOR NOW, YOU'RE NOT CHARGING A FEE FOR THAT APPLICATION BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT OPERATING CORRECT? BECAUSE WE ARE NOT OPERATING AT OUR FULL CAPACITY. WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO COME IN AND SEE OUR BUSINESS AND OUR OPERATION TO MEET ME, TO MEET MY BEAUTIFUL FAMILY, TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD. ALRIGHT. SO WHAT, WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET TO, AND THEN MR. NERI HAS A QUESTION WAS I WAS TRYING TO GET TO IS THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN A PRIVATE CLUB AND A FEE FOR THAT PRIVATE CLUB? THOSE, AND I DON'T HAVE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO SAY OTHER PRIVATE CLUBS ALL CHARGE FEES, BUT I KIND OF THINK SO. THANK YOU MR. NRI. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. YEAH. MR. MANN, MY, MY QUESTION REALLY IS, IS FOR YOUR WITNESS AS PART OF THE, HE STATED THAT THE MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION WAS QUITE EXTENSIVE. UM, AS, AS PART OF THAT EXTENSIVE APPLICATION PROCESS, DO YOU PERFORM A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK ON ANY MEMBER APPLICANTS OR ALL MEMBER? APPLICANTS NOT ALL, BUT WE HAVE DONE CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS [03:15:01] AT OUR OTHER CLUB IN HOUSTON. AND IT, I, YOU MET TRENT, A VERY, VERY SERIOUS FORMER US CHIEF U DEPUTY US MARSHAL, WHO HAS GIVEN US A LOT OF GUIDANCE ON HOW TO BEST CREATE A SECURE AND HEALTHY MEMBERSHIP ROSTER, UH, THAT WE CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN AND ENFORCE. UH, AND WE'RE REALLY HAPPY ABOUT OUR EFFORTS IN THAT REGARD. OKAY. THE ANSWER TO TO HIS QUESTION IS NO, NO. IS NO, YOU DO NOT REQUIRE, YOU DON'T DO A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK? NOT FOR EVERY, I'M TRYING. WELL THEN MY QUESTION IS WHO GETS IT ? YEAH. HOW, HOW IS THAT DETERMINATION MADE WHETHER YOU, MR. NER VERSUS MYSELF, YOU PERFORM A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK ON MEMBER APPLICANTS WHEN THERE'S A CONCERN OR AN ISSUE THAT ARISES. HMM. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. NEARING, UH, JUST A COUPLE MORE REDIRECT QUESTIONS. SO YOU, JUST TO CONFIRM, YOU PREVIOUSLY STATED YOU WILL OPERATE POKER IF ALLOWED EXACTLY LIKE TCH? YES. OKAY. AND FOR CLARITY, TCH HAS BEEN OPERATING DURING THE PENDENCY OF ALL OF THIS LITIGATION AND CONTINUES TO OPERATE TODAY, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND YOU HAVE NOT BEEN OPERATING, CORRECT? CORRECT. THANKS. YOU QUESTION MR. MANN? UH, NOT, BUT I, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THAT IS BEFORE OF US, BEFORE US IS A, UH, CERTIFICATE OCCUPANCY FOR A RESTAURANT WITH NO DRIVE-IN AND AN INSIDE AMUSEMENT. THAT'S THE, THE TWO COMPONENTS OF THE SCENE, CORRECT? YES. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU HAVE NOT OPERATED AS A RESTAURANT DURING THIS TIME PERIOD OR INSIDE AMUSEMENT? I'M CONFUSED. I THOUGHT HE WAS ASKING ME ABOUT DURING THE, THE TIME WHEN TEXAS CARDHOUSE WAS OPERATING. WELL, LET'S HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION. OKAY. YOU'RE NOT OPERATING POKER CURRENTLY? WE ARE CURRENTLY NOT OPERATING POKER. AND TCH IS? YES. CORRECT. AND WHAT ABOUT AS A RESTAURANT? WE ARE OPERATING AS A PRIVATE CLUB AND THE MEMBERS CAN AVAIL THEMSELVES OF OUR, OF THE DINING OPTION FOR THE MEMBERS. I DON'T KNOW. I'M I, I'M SCRATCHING MY HEAD SAYING IF YOU WERE ISSUED A, A CO FOR A RESTAURANT AND INSIDE AMUSEMENT AND THE CO THEN WAS REVOKED, CAN YOU STILL OPERATE DURING THE APPEAL PROCESS? YES. I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S A RHETORICAL QUESTION. CAN THEY MS. BOARD ATTORNEY? YES, THEY CAN. OKAY. SO WELL THAT THE CARD HOUSE IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE JUDGE STAYED HIS ORDER DURING THE APPEALS PROCESS. SO THE CARD HOUSE WAS ALLOWED TO STAY IN BUSINESS UNTIL IT WAS, WENT THROUGH THE APPEALS PROCESS. SO THE RESTAURANT IS OPEN TODAY, BUT HE DOESN'T HAVE A LIQUOR LICENSE. IF YOU'RE A MEMBER, YOU CAN COME DOWN AND DINE AT THE CLUB OKAY. WITH NO LIQUOR. 'CAUSE THERE'S NO LIQUOR LICENSE. YOU CAN BRING YOUR OWN WINE. OKAY. IT'S A GREAT DEAL. AND WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE NOT ADVERTISING HERE, ? NO, WE'RE NOT ADVERTISING. LET'S, NOW THAT'S REDUNDANT. PLEASE DON'T DO THAT. OKAY. I'M, I'M APOLOGIZE. PLEASE DON'T DO THAT. WON'T, YOU'RE RIGHT. THIS IS ISSUE. WHAT YOU'RE GONNA FORCE ME TO DO IS HOLD HIM TO TIME AND THEN HIS TIME'S UP. NOW I WON'T DO IT AGAIN. I APOLOGIZE. DON'T DO. YEAH. NO MORE ADVERTISING. THANK YOU. UM, SO YOU'RE OPERATING AS A RESTAURANT WITHOUT LIQUOR. THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE WHAT I, I UNDERSTOOD. DURING THE APPEALS PROCESS. WHAT ABOUT THE INSIDE AMUSEMENT COMPONENT OF THE CO ARE YOU OPERATING ON UNDER THOSE RIGHTS? UH, YEAH. WE, WE'VE HAD, UH, TRIVIA NIGHTS, WE'VE HAD, UM, WE HAD A BOARD GAME NIGHT. WE'VE HAD, UM, UH, LET'S SEE, WE HAD A MAHJONG MEETUP. UM, SO WE'VE DONE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THAT USE. UH, AND WE REALLY WOULD LIKE TO DO A LOT MORE. IT'S HARD TO DO. I I UNDERSTAND. I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT THE DURING, SINCE THE CO WAS REVOKED. OKAY. YES. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU MR. MANN. I'M READY FOR MY NEXT WITNESS. ALRIGHT, PROCEED. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU BOTH. KEISHA, THERE'LL BE MORE COMING TO YOU. OKAY. KEISHA KEY MISSION RIDGE CONSULTANTS PO BOX 2 6 0 2 0 3 PLANO, TEXAS 7 5 0 2 6. KEISHA, WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND BACKGROUND? I AM THE FOUNDER AND CEO OF MISSION RIDGE CONSULTANTS. WE PROVIDE PROJECT MUNICIPAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO CLIENTS. PRIOR TO THAT, I WAS A CITY EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY OF DALLAS FOR ALMOST 10 YEARS. UM, I LEFT MY TENURE AS THEIR CHIEF PLANNER, WHICH SUPERVISED ZONING PLAN REVIEW ACTIVITIES IN THE BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT. WHAT WAS YOUR ROLE IN OBTAINING THE CEO FOR CHAMPIONS? HERE? WE WERE ENGAGED BY CHAMPIONS TO FACILITATE THE MUNICIPAL APPROVAL PROCESS BY SUBMITTING THEIR CO APPLICATION, ALL OF THEIR REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION, FACILITATING THAT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS WITH THE CITY AND DELIVERING THE APPROVAL DOCUMENTS SO THEY COULD GO THROUGH THEIR INSPECTION PROCESS. DID YOUR ORIGINAL CO APPLICATION CLEARLY STATE THAT POKER WAS INTENDED AS PART OF THE USE? YES. [03:20:01] THE CO APPLICATION DENOTED THE PROPOSED LAND USE OF COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE AS WELL AS RESTAURANT. UM, IT ALSO DENOTED THE PRIOR CO NUMBER FROM 2021 THAT WAS DENIED FOR REFERENCE. UM, OUR LAND USE STATEMENT SPECIFICALLY STATED POKER AND THE PROPOSED OPERATIONS THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE. AND THEN OUR FLOOR PLANS CLEARLY DETAILED POKER TABLES ON THE FURNITURE PLAN. OKAY. THE CITY RECEIVED THE CO APPLICATION ON OCTOBER 16TH, 2024, BUT THE CO WAS NOT ISSUED UNTIL APRIL 9TH, 2025. SO THE INTENTION TO INCLUDE POKER WAS PART OF THE MATERIALS UNDER REVIEW BY THE CITY FOR ALMOST SIX MONTHS, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. AND CAN YOU BRIEFLY DESCRIBE ALL OF THE PROCESSES AND INSPECTIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A CO YES. WHEN A CO APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED TO THIS AND, AND DO IT SLOWLY. 'CAUSE I'M GONNA TAKE NOTES. OKAY. 'CAUSE I'M ACUTELY INTERESTED IN THE STEPS INVOLVED WHEN AN APPLICANT GOES TO THE CITY AND WHAT HAPPENS BACK AND FORTH. OKAY. SO WHEN A CO APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF DALLAS, I'LL ACTUALLY TAKE IT A STEP BACK FURTHER AND TALK ABOUT THE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION, YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT A NOTARIZED LAND USE STATEMENT, AND YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT AT A MINIMUM FLOOR PLANS, SOMETIMES A SITE PLAN THAT SUBMITTAL INFORMATION, IF DEEMED COMPLETE IS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF DALLAS. THAT INITIATES A PRE-SCREEN PLAN REVIEW PROCESS. ONCE YOU PASS PRE-SCREEN, YOU PAY YOUR APPLICABLE FEES. YOU'RE THEN ROUTED FOR PLAN REVIEW WHERE IT'S REVIEWED AT A MINIMUM BY A BUILDING CODE PLANS EXAMINER AND A ZONING PLANS EXAMINER. ONCE APPROVED, YOU HAVE A CO INSPECTION REQUEST. YOU'RE OUT OF PLAN REVIEW. NOW YOU'RE IN THE INSPECTION PHASE THROUGH THE FIELD OFFICE INSPECTION GROUP. THERE ARE MULTIPLE INSPECTIONS THAT HAPPEN ON SITE FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE AS WELL AS A CODE PERSPECTIVE FOR BUILDING CODE MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL PLUMBING. IS, IS THAT AKIN TO GREEN TAGS? YES, I WAS GETTING TO THAT. YES. AS EACH INSPECTION IS PASSED, THERE'S A CONSTRUCTION TERM DEEMED A GREEN TAG. WE'RE NOW IN AN AUTOMATED SYSTEM, DOESN'T EXACTLY APPLY, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE AUTOMATED. BUT I STILL GO BACK TO THE GREEN. CORRECT. YOU GET A GREEN, YELLOW, OR RED. CORRECT. YOU GET A GREEN TAG DEEMING, IT'S BEEN PASSED THAT PAST INSPECTION SHOWS IN THE SYSTEM. ONCE ALL YOUR INSPECTIONS ARE PASSED, YOU SCHEDULE YOUR FINAL, ASSUMING THAT IS PASSED, THE FIELD OFFICE DELIVERS YOU YOUR FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO BE POSTED IN YOUR TENANT SPACE. OKAY. SO I STILL HAVE MORE QUESTIONS HERE. SO YOU SAID, AND NOW MR. MANN SAID THAT THIS LAND USE STATEMENT THAT'S IN THE, THAT'S IN THE DOCKET HERE IS DATED OCTOBER 7TH AND IT IS NOTARIZED. I SEE IT NOTARIZED, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOUR WITNESS SAID. SO IT'S, THIS PROCESS STARTED ON OCTOBER 16TH. THE SUBMITTAL IS THE SUBMITTAL. THE SUBMITTAL HAPPENED ON OCTOBER 16TH. DID YOU HAVE CONVERSATION WITH BUILDING INSPECTION PRIOR TO OCTOBER 16TH ABOUT THIS SITE? ABOUT THIS REQUEST? NO, THERE WAS NO NEED TO. OH, THAT'S YOUR BUSINESS. OKAY. SO YOU SAID PLAN REVIEW, APPROVAL OR DOCUMENTS, FIELD INSPECTIONS, RIGHT? CORRECT. SO DO YOU HAVE DATES AND WHAT THE APPROVALS WERE OR DENIALS WERE FROM OCTOBER 16TH FORWARD? YES. ALL OF THAT IS IN THE CITY SYSTEM. IT'S PUBLIC RECORD. NO, I, I'M LOOKING FOR IT HERE. WE DON'T HAVE IT HERE. WE CAN PULL THAT BECAUSE WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN KNOWING IS WHAT AN APPLICANT DID WITH THE CITY, WHAT THE CITY DID BASED ON EACH OF THOSE ACTIONS. AGAIN, OUR CRITERIA TODAY IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIRED. AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE HAVE TO KNOW WHO, WHERE, WHEN, AND WHY. YES. AND MS. HAYDEN, SO I'M INTERESTED MR. MANN, IN THAT INTERACTION BACK AND FORTH, IS IT ONE GREEN TAG? IS IT FIVE GREEN TAGS? IS IT, YOU KNOW, WITH SPECIFIC SPECIFICITY? MS. MS. HAYDEN HAS A QUESTION. WHEN WERE YOU ENGAGED WITH THE, UH, APPLICANT IN THIS PROCESS? UM, I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHECK THE EXACT DATE. IT WAS PRIOR TO OCTOBER AND IT WAS TO FACILITATE THE CO PROCESS. SO IT WAS EN ENOUGH IN ADVANCE TO START COLLECTING ALL OF THE SUBMITTAL ITEMS AND WORKING WITH THE TENANT TO GET ALL OF THAT TO MAKE AN OFFICIAL CITY SUBMITTAL. SO PRIOR TO OCTOBER OF 2024? YES. I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE 2021. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. TO KEEP GOING? YEP, KEEP GOING. OKAY. BUT I'M INTERESTED, I'M INTERESTED IN IN, WAS IT ONE INSPECTION? WAS IT TWO AND YEAH, WITH SPECIFIC WITH SPECIFICS. OKAY. UM, SO KEISHA, WOULD EACH MEMBER OF CITY STAFF INVOLVED IN THESE REVIEWS AND INSPECTIONS HAVE HAD ACCESS TO THE LAND USE STATEMENT AND FLOOR [03:25:01] PLANS IDENTIFYING POKER? YES, THEY WOULD HAVE. DID ANY OF THOSE CITY STAFF MEMBERS EXPRESS CONCERN TO YOU ABOUT POKER DURING THAT PROCESS? NO, THEY DID NOT. BASED ON YOUR EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE WITH THESE APPLICATIONS, DO YOU THINK IT'S MORE LIKELY THAT ALL OF THESE STAFF MEMBERS MADE THE SAME MISTAKE OR THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WAS TOLD TO REVOKE THIS CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY? I BELIEVE THEY WERE TOLD TO REVOKE. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS A SIMPLE STAFF ERROR. UM, I KNOW THIS PLAN REVIEW STAFF, I WORKED ALONGSIDE THEM FOR ALMOST 10 YEARS NOW. I WORK WITH THEM IN A PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY PROVIDING CONSULTING SERVICES. UM, I KNOW THESE CITY STAFF MEMBERS TO BE DILIGENT, GREAT CIVIL SERVANTS. UM, WE CLEARLY DENOTED OUR POKER LAND USE ON ALL REQUIRED SUBMITTED DOCUMENTATION. UM, WE DENOTED THE PRIOR CO THAT'S BEEN REFERENCED HERE TODAY TO, TO FURTHER BE TRANSPARENT AND DETAIL THE HISTORY OF WHAT'S HAPPENED ON THIS PROPERTY. UM, THERE WE HAD ALSO, IT IS MY BELIEF THAT TOO MANY CITY STAFF MEMBERS REVIEWED AND APPROVED THIS TO BE EQUATED TO JUST A SIMPLE STAFF ERROR. AND ISN'T IT ALSO TRUE THAT THE CITY SOFTWARE SHOWS OLD APPLICATIONS AND HOLDS THAT HAD OCCURRED PREVIOUSLY ON AN ADDRESS? CORRECT. UM, SO JUST TO EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT, PART OF A PLAN REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH THE CITY CAN ATTEST TO, UM, IS DOING HISTORY RESEARCH AS A CITY PLANS EXAMINER TO CONFIRM PRIOR ISSUES, PRIOR HOLDS ON THE PROPERTY, PROPOSED LAND USE, ET CETERA. AND THE CITY SIDE OF THAT PLAN REVIEW SYSTEM IS SET UP IN A WAY TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION, UM, SO THAT IT CAN BE DIGESTED BY THE PLAN'S EXAMINER AND THEIR APPROVALS OR DENIALS. GRANTED. Z KEISHA, I KNOW THE CHAIR WANTS SPECIFICITY AND YOU'LL HAVE TO CONSULT YOUR RECORDS, BUT WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT MORE THAN FIVE CITY STAFF MEMBERS ARE ENGAGED IN THIS REVIEW PROCESS? CORRECT. THAT INCLUDES PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTION STAFF. I WOULD CAUTION YOU , IF YOU SAY MORE THAN FIVE, I'M GONNA LOOK FOR FIVE OR SIX. MORE THAN FIVE MEANS I'M GONNA LOOK FOR SIX. I CHOSE A LOW NUMBER IN SIX, SIX DOCUMENTED INSTANCES. SO, UH, YEAH, I, I WANT TO CAUTION YOU ON WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. SO, NO, SO HE SAID MORE THAN FIVE AND YOU CONFIRM THAT. I AM CONFIRMING THAT. ALRIGHT, SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR SIX OR MORE. MS. DAVIS HAS A QUESTION. UM, GOING BACK TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, YOU, YOU MENTIONED THE BUILDING OFFICIAL REVOKED THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. HOW COMMON IS THAT? ARE YOU ASKING FROM THE CONSULTANT OPINION OR A FORMER CITY OF DALLAS STAFF MEMBER OPINION? JUST GENERALLY? WELL, I'D LOVE TO KNOW HOW COMMON IS IT? AND I, I'D LOVE SOME STATS ON, YOU KNOW, DOES, DOES THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, YOU KNOW, DECIDE 20% OF THOSE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, YOU KNOW, THEY SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ISSUED. IS IT 5%? IS IT 50%? I THINK THAT WOULD BE REALLY TELLING AND AT SOME POINT I'M GONNA WANNA KNOW EXACTLY WHY THAT HAPPENED AND WHY IT CONTINUES, WHY IT'S HAPPENED SEVERAL TIMES. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I DON'T THINK I'M ANY LONGER QUALIFIED TO ANSWER THAT GIVEN MY CURRENT, UM, PROFESSION. SO, UM, I'LL, HOPEFULLY YOU CAN ASK THAT OF THE CITY. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. MANN OR A WITNESS IN THE BOARD STAFF'S PRESENTATION TO US, AND IT'S MINIMAL BECAUSE THEY DON'T TAKE A POSITION ON THIS, BUT IT'S IN THE RECORD. UH, IT SAYS THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR A CERTIFICATE OCCUPANCY CO ON OCTOBER 7TH, 2024. OKAY. THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN YOUR DATE, BUT THAT'S WHAT THIS SAYS. IT SAYS THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WAS APPROVED BY ZONING ON JANUARY 6TH, 2025. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? ZONING, THE ZONING PLAN REVIEW THAT'S REQUIRED ON CO APPLICATIONS? IS IT TYPICAL FOR IT TO TAKE TWO MONTHS? THERE ARE LENGTHY TIMELINES FOR PERMIT REVIEWS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING, BUT DOES THIS MAKE SENSE THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED ON THE 7TH OF OCTOBER AND THEN THE ZONING WAS APPROVED? WAS A CERTIFICATE WAS APPROVED BY ZONING ON JANUARY 6TH. OCTOBER 7TH IS NOVEMBER, DECEMBER, OH, IT'S THREE MONTHS. I CAN'T COUNT. SO 90 DAYS. WOO. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE, DOES THAT, DOES THE, IS WHAT I SAY SEEMED TO BE CORRECT TO YOU THAT IT WAS APPROVED BY ZONING ON JANUARY 6TH? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. AND WE CAN PULL A REPORT SHOWING THAT. OKAY, WELL I'M, WELL THE STAFFS HAVE GIVEN ME, SO I'M JUST READING IT FROM WHAT'S IN THE RECORD. OKAY. SO THAT'S 90 DAYS FROM INITIAL SUBMITTAL AND WHEN IT, WHEN, WHEN IT SAYS IT'S APPROVED BY ZONING, I STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. I, I COULD CONJECTURE, BUT I WANT YOU AS A WITNESS TO TELL US UNDER OATH. OKAY. SO WHENEVER I WAS WALKING THROUGH THE CO APPLICATION [03:30:01] PROCESS, YOU MAKE THE APPLICATION, IT'S ROUTED TO A MINIMUM OF TWO DEPARTMENTS. ONE IS BUILDING CODE, ONE IS ZONING, THEY'RE REVIEWING IT, ZONING'S REVIEWING IT FROM A LAND USE COMPLIANCY PERSPECTIVE UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE. WELL IT'S MU ONE ZONING. MM-HMM . OKAY, GO AHEAD. AND BUILDING CODE IS REVIEWING IT FROM A LIFE SAFETY OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION UNDERNEATH THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE. IS THAT LIKE FOR TRADES, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND ALL THAT? OR NO, THAT'S, NO, THERE'S NO TRADE REVIEW BECAUSE IT'S NOT TIED TO A REMODEL PERMIT. SO WE'RE JUST DOING LIFE SAFETY AND LAND USE FOR A CO ONLY APPLICATION, WHICH THIS WAS TAKES 90 DAYS. I NEED TO CHECK AND SEE WHEN BUILDING CODE WAS APPROVED BECAUSE IT WAS EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THAT. WELL, I WILL ASK THIS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WHEN IT'S THEIR TURN, BUT I'M JUST AGAIN READING WHAT IS IN OUR DOCKET THAT SAYS SUBMITTED ON THE 7TH OF OCTOBER AND APPROVED BY ZONING ON JANUARY 6TH, 2025. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY FOR ME, CONTINUE PROCEED. OKAY. UH, KEISHA, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS CLAIMED THAT A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE USE AND A RESTAURANT CAN NEVER BE CONSIDERED PRIVATE. IN YOUR EXPERIENCE AT THE CITY THAT THE ZONING REGULATIONS DICTATE WHETHER OR NOT A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE CAN BE FOR MEMBERS ONLY? NO, IT DOES NOT. IS THAT EVEN PART OF THE REVIEW OF A CO APPLICATION? NO, IT IS NOT BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE ORDINANCE. OKAY. ARE THERE PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENTS THAT HAVE COS FOR RESTAURANT AND OR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE IN DALLAS? YES, THERE ARE. TO NAME A FEW. SHUFFLE 2 1 4 HAS A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE CO TEXAS CARDHOUSE HAS A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE CO TOWER DALLAS, ALSO KNOWN AS THE TOWER CLUB, HAS A RESTAURANT CO BUT IT OPERATES AS A PRIVATE CLUB, UM, WITH COMMERCIAL INSIDE AMUSEMENT, NOT DENOTED ON THEIR PUBLIC CITY RECORDS. SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. OKAY. 55 70 IS HAS A RESTAURANT CO THAT OPERATES AS A PRIVATE CLUB AND THE CRESCENT CLUB HAS A RESTAURANT CO THAT OPERATES AS A PRIVATE CLUB. SO WOULD YOU SAY IT'S CORRECT THAT A BUSINESS WITH A CO FOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE COULD BE A PRIVATE PLACE? YES. IS THE DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE IN THE DALLAS CITY CODE THE SAME TODAY AS IT WAS IN 2021? YES IT IS. OKAY. THIS ONE'S A LITTLE CONFUSING. THE ACTUAL CO DOCUMENT ISSUED TO CHAMPIONS ONLY LISTS RESTAURANT, BUT YOU APPLIED FOR BOTH RESTAURANT AND COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE. IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, IS IT COMMON FOR ONLY ONE OF THE MAIN USES APPROVED TO BE SHOWN ON THE FINAL CO? IT IS, IT'S A SYSTEM ISSUE. THE SYSTEM ONLY ALLOWS THE CITY TO ENTER ONE LAND USE THAT'S PRINTED ON THAT CO INSPECTION OR FINAL CO. OKAY. HOLD THAT THOUGHT. IN THE, IN THE DOCUMENTS, AGAIN, I'M NOT COMING UP WITH ANYTHING THAT'S NOT PUBLIC RECORD. IT SHOWS US THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND THIS WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE LAST HEARING BEFORE WE POSTPONED. AND THAT ANSWERS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE HAD. 'CAUSE IT SAYS HERE, RESTAURANT WITHOUT DRIVE-IN SERVICE. AND SEVERAL OF US SAID, WELL WAIT A MINUTE, WHERE'S THE INSIDE AMUSEMENT? THE OTHER THING, AND I WILL COME BACK TO THE, THIS, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HERE IN A SECOND, IS THIS, THIS IS GOTTA BE INCOMPLETE BECAUSE IT GIVES ALL THESE RULES ON THE BOTTOM AND ENDS UP WITH, OR WHICH MEANS THERE'S MORE DOWN HERE THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT. SO WHERE'S THE REST OF THE, WHERE'S THE REST OF YOUR CO IT'S A SYSTEM ISSUE. WHEN YOU FILL THE TEXT BOX, WHENEVER IT SPITS OUT THE REPORT, IT DOESN'T CAPTURE ALL THE TEXT. SO YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE CITY SYSTEM TO REFERENCE THAT. BUT IS THIS WHAT SITS ON YOUR WALL? IT'S NOT A PERFECT SYSTEM, BUT JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AS TO WHY IT LOOKS LIKE THAT. OKAY. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL I WILL BE ASKING, WE WILL BE ASKING TO SEE THE FULL CO BECAUSE THAT'S RELEVANT TO WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MADE AN ERROR IN THEIR DECISION OF ISSUING A CO BECAUSE THIS IS INCOMPLETE OBVIOUSLY. SO WHEN IT COMES TO YOU, WE'LL BE I'LL BE ASKING THAT AGAIN. THAT WAS A QUESTION THAT WE WERE KIND OF WONDERING WHAT'S WHAT'S THE DEAL, BUT OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, OKAY, UH, ONE OTHER QUESTION. UH, I, IN YOUR DOCUMENTS THAT YOU PROVIDED US, IT GOES INTO THE MU ONE DISTRICTS AND IT HAS THE, UH, RETAIL PERSONAL SERVICE USES COMMERCIAL INSIDE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE IT SAYS SUP MAY BE REQUIRED. YEAH. IT'S, IS THAT APPLICABLE FOR THIS? IT IS NOT. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? BECAUSE IF YOU GO TO THAT CODE SECTION THAT IT REFERENCES YOU TO, IT TALKS ABOUT THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF DANCE HALLS AND THOSE DIFFERENT TYPES OF DANCE HALLS IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS MAY REQUIRE AN SUP. THAT'S THE BREADCRUMBS IT'S LEADING YOU TO. OKAY, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. 'CAUSE IT SAYS MAY BE REQUIRED, BUT YOU'RE SAYING IT DOES NOT. CORRECT. [03:35:01] OKAY. MR. HAVI HAS A QUESTION. UM, PREVIOUSLY IT WAS STATED THAT THE, UM, THAT THE CITY OFFICIAL WAS TOLD TO REVOKE THE CO WAS THAT AN OPINION OR A STATEMENT OF FACT? IT'S AN OPINION. IT'S MY BELIEF. THANK YOU. I THINK THE OTHER WITNESS SAID THAT AS WELL, DIDN'T YOU? I BELIEVE SO, YEAH. SO WE'VE HEARD IT TWICE NOW. THAT'S, I'M GLAD YOU'RE BEING HONEST AND SAYING IT'S YOUR OPINION. SO, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE GONNA GET TO TODAY IS RULES, FACTS, AND LAWS. OH, A PUBLIC SPEAKER SPOKE ABOUT THAT AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY RELEVANT. WHAT ARE THE RULES? WHAT ARE THE FACTS AND WHAT'S THE LAW? OKAY, THANK YOU. CONTINUE, MR. MANN. OKAY, KEISHA. SO TO BE CLEAR, CHAMPION'S APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL INSIDE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE CO WAS APPROVED, RIGHT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES PROCEDURE, IF THE APPLICANT BRINGS A WITNESS, THE, UM, THE, UH, BUILDING OFFICIAL AND OR ATTORNEY IS ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINEE AND WE'RE BEING A LITTLE GOOSE LOOSEY GOOSEY ON THE TIME PERIOD. SO WE GAVE HIM A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME. WE'LL GIVE HER A REASONABLE TIME'S EQUALLY. MS. RODRIGUEZ? THANK YOU MS. CHAIRMAN. MS. K, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU USED TO WORK IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CORRECT? UM, CORRECT. I WORKED IN APOLOGIES. I WORKED IN BOTH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND BUILDING INSPECTION DURING MY TENURE WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS. OKAY. AND YOU ACTUALLY SUPERVISED THE PLANS EXAMINERS? YES, I DID. UH, AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE ENGAGED BY, UH, CHAMPIONS TO ASSIST WITH FACILITATING THEIR CO UM, WERE YOU AWARE THAT THERE WAS LITIGATION PENDING RELATING TO THEIR PRIOR APPLICATION? YES, I WAS. WERE YOU ALSO AWARE THAT THERE WAS LITIGATION PENDING, UH, WITH RESPECT TO TEXAS CARDHOUSE AND OTHER POKER CLUBS? YES, I WAS. AND, UM, WERE YOU AWARE, SO I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, OF THE FACT THAT THERE HAD BEEN A COURT OF APPEALS OPINION ISSUED A COUPLE OF MONTHS PRIOR RELATING TO TEXAS CARDHOUSE AT THE TIME OF THE CO APPLICATION? NO, I LEARNED THAT LATER. I WAS NOT FOLLOWING THAT CLOSELY. OKAY. UH, HAVE YOU READ THAT OPINION YOURSELF? NO, I HAVE NOT. HAVE YOU RELIED ON LEGAL ADVICE FROM, UH, THE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING CHAMPIONS ABOUT THE MEANING OF THAT OPINION? JUST A YES OR NO QUESTION. I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO GIVE, YOU KNOW, ANY DETAILS ABOUT IT. ARE YOU ASKING THAT OF CHAMPIONS OR CONTENDER? UH, THE PREVIOUS ENTITY WAS CHAMPIONS. I, THIS APPLICANT IS CONTENDER. OKAY. I'M A CONTENDER. THEN. MY QUESTION IS JUST HAVE YOU RELIED ON THE LEGAL ADVICE PROVIDED BY THEIR LEGAL TEAM? I WOULDN'T USE THE WORD RELIED. HAVE WE DISCUSSED IT? YES, BUT I I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S BEEN RELIED ON FOR ANY OF THIS TESTIMONY. OKAY. UM, AFTER THE, WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS, BEFORE YOU SUBMITTED THE CO APPLICATION ON OCTOBER 7TH, 2024, DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH ANY CITY EMPLOYEES, UH, WITHIN THE, UM, PLANNING DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE APPLICATION? NO, IT'S NOT COMMON TO DO SO BECAUSE CHAPTER 52 SAYS THAT NO PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS CAN BE GIVEN UNTIL AN APPLICATION IS MADE. SO IT'S NOT REALLY WORTH ASKING QUESTIONS UNTIL THAT OFFICIAL APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED, IN MY OPINION. OKAY. SO AFTER THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED, DID YOU HAVE, UH, CONVERSATIONS WITH ANY EMPLOYEES IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT? THERE WERE NO CONVERSATIONS. THERE WAS OUTREACH FOR STATUS UPDATES. WHERE'S THIS PROJECT AT? THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. THEY WENT UNRESPONDED IN ANY OF THOSE COMMUNICATIONS. WHEN YOU SAY THEY, WHAT? SORRY? YOU THEY WENT UNRESPONDED. SO NO ONE RESPONDED TO YOUR INQUIRY? NO, THAT'S NOT UNCOMMON. WAIT A MINUTE. SO AS AN APPLICANT ON OR ABOUT THE SEVENTH OR 16TH, I HEAR TWO DATES, 16TH OF OCTOBER, YOU WERE ASKED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S ATTORNEY WHETHER YOU TALKED TO SOMEONE BEFOREHAND, YOU SAID NO, YOU WERE ASKED BY THE BUILDING, BUILDING OFFICIAL'S ATTORNEY WHETHER YOU'D HAD CONVERSATION AFTERWARDS AND YOU SAID NO, AND I JUST SAID YOU DIDN'T HEAR BACK FROM THEM. THAT IS CORRECT. AND SO IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THEN THAT NO ONE IN THE DEPARTMENT TOLD YOU THAT THE LAND USE WAS, WAS LEGAL AND WOULD BE APPROVED, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. NOBODY TOLD ME. BUT THE APPLICATION WAS APPROVED AND PASSED ALL APPLICABLE INSPECTIONS. I UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. SO, UM, OKAY. UM, YOU TALKED ABOUT, UM, THE FACT THAT WHEN A CO APPLICATION IS MADE TO THE CITY THAT THERE'S A BUILDING CODE REVIEW AND A ZONING REVIEW. RIGHT. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? CORRECT. [03:40:01] AT A MINIMUM IN THIS CASE. UH, DO YOU KNOW, UH, WHERE IT WAS IN THE PROCESS THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE CO APPLICATION WAS MADE IN ITS ENTIRETY AS BETWEEN ZONING AND BUILDING CODE? DO YOU KNOW? NO, I NEED TO LOOK UP THAT BUILDING CODE DATE. OKAY. BUT YOU TESTIFIED THAT THERE WERE MORE THAN FIVE CITY STAFFERS INVOLVED IN APPROVING THIS CO APPLICATION, EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW THAT THE LAND USE STATEMENT, UH, AND THE FLOOR PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED INDICATED THAT POKER WOULD BE PLAYED? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. IN YOUR EXPERIENCE AT THE CITY, IS IT COMMON FOR THE BUILDING CODE INSPECTORS TO LOOK UP THE LAND USE STATEMENT AND THE FLOOR PLANS WHEN THEY'RE DOING THEIR WORK? YES, IT IS. AND THAT, THAT IS WHAT YOU INSTRUCTED YOUR PEOPLE TO DO WHEN YOU WERE THERE? YES. OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION GOING BACK TO YOUR, AND I'M TRYING TO TRACK THIS, UH, MS. RODRIGUEZ, YOU ASKED THE QUESTION WHETHER TO CONFIRM WHETHER THE WITNESS SAID THAT MORE THAN FIVE EMPLOYEES OF BUILDING CODE REVIEWED THE APPLICATION. THAT WAS YOUR QUESTION AND OR DID I I DON'T THINK SHE SAID BUILDING CODE. I THINK SHE SAID BUILDING INSPECTION. WELL, OKAY. I APOLOGIZE. BUILDING INSPECTION, I'LL PUT ISP AND YOU SAID, OR YOU SAID I, WHO'S TESTIFYING TO THE FACT THAT THERE WERE FIVE BUILDING INSPECTION PEOPLE TOUCHING THIS APPLICATION? YEAH. ARE YOU ARE OR IS THE APPLICANT IS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE? WE ARE, YOU'RE SAYING FIVE AT LEAST, BUT I CAN GET YOU THE RECORDS TO PROVE IT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ACCOUNTING FOR ALL THE INSPECTORS THAT CAME OUT ON SITE. OKAY. WELL, AND AND EVERYONE'S UNDER OATH HERE. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, YOU KNOW, FROM YOUR TIME AT THE CITY AND IN THE WORK THAT YOU DO CURRENTLY, THAT, UH, IF A CO IS ISSUED IN ERROR IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS LEGALLY REQUIRED TO REVOKE IT, DON'T YOU? YES, I DO. THE CO THAT WAS ISSUED, UH, FOR THIS, UM, LOCATION WAS FOR A RESTAURANT AND COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE, CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. AND I'M TALKING ABOUT THE MOST RECENT CO ISSUED IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR. APRIL 9TH. APRIL 9TH, 2025. 25. THANK YOU. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE DEFINITION OF A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE IN THE DALLAS CITY CODE? YES, I AM. AND SO YOU'RE AWARE THAT IT IS, UM, A FACILITY WHOLLY ENCLOSED IN A BUILDING THAT OFFERS GAMES OF SKILL TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC FOR A FEE? YES. AND SO THE CITY'S INTERPRETATION IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S OFFERED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC CANNOT BE PRIVATE. ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? YES, I HAVE SINCE LEARNED THAT. OKAY. UH, EX EX HOLD ON ONE SECOND. I'M TAKING NOTES. SO YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTION UNDER THE MU I ASSUME IT'S UNDER MU ONE. UM, MU ONE DISTRICT, WHICH IS THIS LOCATION, SUBSECTION J RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE USES COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE. AND MS. RODRIGUEZ, YOU ASKED THE QUESTION THAT THAT IS ONLY FOR GENERAL PUBLIC, THAT ZONING SUB-CATEGORIES ONLY FOR GENERAL PUBLIC. I WAS REFERRING TO THE DEFINITION OF YES. COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE THE, THE SPECIFIC LAND USE OF COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE YES. IN SECTION 51, A 4.210 A SEVEN OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE. OKAY, WELL, I'M LOOKING AT A MINI VERSION OF THIS. I'M PAGE 70 AND 71 IN THE DOCKET. THAT REFERENCE DOESN'T GO INTO ALL THE DETAILS, BUT JUST LIST IT. SO A QUESTION BACK TO, TO THE, I GUESS A QUESTION COMING TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, IF THE LAND USE STATEMENT SAYS IT'S EXCLUSIVE MEMBERS ONLY, WHY WOULD THE BUILDING OFFICIAL SEE FIT TO SAY WE'RE GONNA GIVE YOU A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE ZONING IF IT'S ONLY FOR GENERAL PUBLIC, YET THEIR LAND USE DATED OCTOBER 7TH SAYS MEMBERS ONLY. WELL, IT, HOW DID WE DROP THE BALL ON THAT? I, THE, THE CO WAS ISSUED MISTAKENLY AND IN ERROR? WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT ERROR WAS THERE. IT WAS THEN REVOKED. I I UNDERSTAND. I DIDN'T KNOW THIS CATEGORY THAT IT COULD BE ONLY FOR GENERAL PUBLIC. SO IT'S CLEAR UNDER THE DEFINITION OF A RESTAURANT THAT THAT CANNOT BE A PRIVATE PLACE IN THE CITY CODE. OKAY. AND SO I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT TRIED, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE LOOKING FOR THE LAND USE THAT MOST CLOSELY, UM, WELL LET THEY WENT TO WHAT THEY WANTED. SO THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY A QUESTION FOR THEM. WHY DID THEY APPLY FOR THAT? AND, AND LIKEWISE, MY QUESTION TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WILL BE WHY WOULD THE BUILDING INSPECTION PEOPLE ISSUE A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE IF THEY'RE KNOWING IT'S [03:45:01] A MEMBERS ONLY APPLICATION? YES. AND SO MY WITNESS CAN ADDRESS THAT? YES. YES. MS. DAVIS HAS A QUESTION. YES. UM, YES. QUESTION FOR THE ASSISTANT BUILDING OFFICIAL, CAN YOU EXPLAIN? YOU JUST SAID THAT YOU THINK THAT THIS, SHE'S NOT, SHE WAS, I'M, I'M JUST CROSS-EXAMINING MS. K, SO JUST OH, NO, WE CAN GET TO IT. NO, SORRY ABOUT THAT. NO, IT'S OKAY. UM, YOU KNOW THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE UNDERLYING ZONING IS FOR A PIECE OF PROPERTY, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CANNOT ISSUE A CO FOR A USE THAT IS ILLEGAL UNDER STATE LAW, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU MS. KAY. THANK YOU. CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, UH, THE APPLICANT CAN REDIRECT THE WITNESS, MR. MANN. THANKS KEISHA. JUST TO REITERATE, YOUR PRIOR TESTIMONY TO MY QUESTIONS INCLUDED EXAMPLES OF MULTIPLE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE USES IN DALLAS WITH CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY THAT ARE MEMBERS ONLY. CORRECT. AND RESTAURANTS THAT ARE MEMBERS ONLY. OKAY. TO YOUR POINT BEING THERE ARE OTHERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. I, YEAH. IS THAT WHAT SHE'S TESTIFYING TO? YES, SIR. AND SHE CAN NAME THEM AGAIN? SHE DID IN HER PRIOR TESTIMONY. ARE YOU AWARE THAT TWO TWO OF THE, OR AT LEAST LET'S FOCUS ON TCH IS ONE OF THE EXAMPLES YOU GAVE, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THEY HAD A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY REINSTATED BY THIS BOARD, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THE LEGAL THEORIES THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS JUST PUTTING BEFORE YOU WERE THE SAME ONES THEY RAISED BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS AS FAR AS YOU KNOW. IS THAT CORRECT? AS FAR AS I KNOW, YES. AND THEY LOST THAT DECISION? CORRECT. AND THEY APPEALED THAT DECISION TO THE SUPREME COURT, CORRECT. AND THEY LOST THAT DECISION? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. THANKS. WELL, LET'S BE, LET'S BE ACCURATE. MR. MANN. THEY DIDN'T LOSE THAT DECISION. THAT IS AN INCORRECT CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DID, THE SUPREME SUPREME COURT. SO LET SUPREME COURT REFUSE THEIR PETITION. IF YOU'RE GONNA, IF YOU'RE GONNA HAVE YOUR WITNESS ANSWER A LEADING QUESTION LIKE THAT, LET'S MAKE SURE SHE TESTIFIES ACCURATELY. OKAY. YOU'RE AWARE THAT THE SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO HEAR THE CITY'S APPEAL? YES. OKAY. I AM AWARE. ALRIGHT. AND WHAT IS THE RE WHAT IS THE NET RESULT? WHEN THE SUPREME COURT DECLINES A REVIEW, THEN THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS BECOMES BINDING LEGAL PRECEDENT. SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME. I WANNA MAKE SURE WE, I WANNA MAKE SURE WE ALL HEAR THAT. YES. THEN THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS BECOMES BINDING LEGAL PRECEDENT WHEN THE SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO HEAR A PETITION OF THEIR DECISION. KEISHA, ONE LAST QUESTION. WHEN YOU WERE AT THE CITY REVIEWING CO APPLICATIONS, DID YOU LOOK AT THE TEXAS PENAL CODE A LOT? NO, THANKS. HOW MANY YEARS WERE YOU WITH THE CITY? UH, JUST SHY OF 10 WHAT YEARS? 2010 TO JULY OF 2019. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, MR. HOP HAS A QUESTION. THE, UH, I GUESS THIS QUESTION IS FOR MR. MANN. UM, THE OTHER BUSINESS THAT Y'ALL HAVE REFERENCED, UH, TEXAS CARDHOUSE, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT. IS IT LOCATED ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA IN THE VICINITY OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS? NO. SO I'LL ASK THE QUESTION I ASKED EARLIER OF YOU. IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT IF SOMETHING IS ALLOWED SOMEPLACE, IT'S ALLOWED ANY PLACE? NO. IT'S MY OPINION, I GUESS WE'RE ASKING FOR OPINIONS NOW THAT IF A USE IS ALLOWED IN ONE ZONING DISTRICT, THE CITY HAS TO ALLOW IT IN THAT SAME ZONING DISTRICT, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, THE LAW MUST BE APPLIED EVENLY AND THE SAME TO SIMILARLY SITUATED BUSINESSES. THAT IS WHY. SO WHERE, WHERE IS THAT OTHER BUSINESS LOCATED? IT'S ON HARRY HINES. AND WHY DO YOU THAT THAT'S IN THE VICINITY OF THIS LOCATION. THE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE USE IS ALLOWED BY THE ZONING OF THAT PROPERTY. THEY RECEIVED A CO FOR IT. NO, I'M, I'M ASKING, I'M ASKING A DIFFERENT QUESTION. NO, YOU'RE, I'M, I'M ASKING YOU IF SOMETHING'S ALLOWED ON HARRY HINES BOULEVARD IS ALLOWED ON THE DALLAS PARKWAY. THAT USE IS ALLOWED ON THAT SITE AND THIS SITE YES. BY THE APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS, THE SAME USE HO HOLD ON A SECOND. HOLD ON A SECOND. I'LL GO TO YOU NEXT. MR. N SO HE, HE MADE THE COMMENT, MR. KOVI, THAT IF IT'S ALLOWED IN ONE LOCATION WITHIN A ZONING [03:50:01] DISTRICT, THIS IS MU ONE, IT'S ALLOWED ANYWHERE IN THE CITY UNDER MU ONE. IS THAT WHAT YOU TESTIFIED TO? YES. MS. BOARD ATTORNEY. IS THAT ACCURATE? YES. IF THEY'RE UNDER THE SAME ZONING, THEN THEY'RE, THEY CAN HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AND SAME USES UNDER THE SAME ZONING. I'LL GO TO YOU IN A SECOND, MR. NE, MR. KOVI, I'M, I'M JUST CONFUSED. I WANNA, I WANNA ASK OUR BOARD ATTORNEY THE QUESTION IN A DIFFERENT WAY. AGAIN, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS OTHER BUSINESS, BUT I'M FAMILIAR WITH HARRY HEINZ BOULEVARD. IT'S KIND OF AN INDUSTRIAL AREA VERSUS A RESIDENTIAL AREA. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S THE SAME APPLICABLE ZONING IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA AS IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA? AM I MISUNDERSTANDING THAT? I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. IT'S WHAT THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY IS ZONED. SO WE HAVE LOTS OF DIFFERENT ZONINGS ON IN THE CITY. SO IF THE PROPERTY ON HARRY HINES HAS THE SAME MIXED USE ZONING AS THE PROPERTY ON DALLAS PARKWAY, THEN THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS. CORRECT. IF I CAN CLARIFY THE, THE, THE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS AN U ONE ZONING. SO WHAT, WHAT THEY TESTIFIED TO, AND I WANTED TO CONFIRM IT TO OUR BOARD ATTORNEY, IS IF IT'S ALLOWED AT THIS LOCATION IN MU ONE ZONING, IT'S ALLOWED AT ANY OTHER MU ONE ZONING. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. AND, AND, AND THEY'RE ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR THE SAME CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE SAME USES, OR THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BE, THEY THEY MUST BE ISSUED IT, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO APPLY BECAUSE IT'S IN THE SAME TYPE OF A ZONING DISTRICT, OR IT MUST BE ISSUED BECAUSE IT'S IN THE SAME TYPE OF ZONING. THEY'RE ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR THAT USE BECAUSE THAT USE IS PERMITTED IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT. OKAY. BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRED TO ISSUE IT. SO IT'S AN ALLOWED USE. THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS TO SEE IF THE CO WOULD BE ISSUED. BUT I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. WELL, WE, WE TALK A LOT IN MEETINGS IN, IN OUR MEETINGS ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT. SO IS IT ALLOWED BY RIGHT. FOR THE CO TO BE ISSUED? NO, IT IS, IT IS. THEY COULD APPLY FOR THAT USE BY, RIGHT? YES. CORRECT. IT'S NOT GUARANTEED TO BE ISSUED BY RIGHT. THAT THE, THE SLIGHT DIFFERENCE HERE IS THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS AN MU ONE ZONING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. I DUNNO IF IT'S A PD OR IT'S R 10, IT'S RESIDENTIAL. THAT PROXIMITY BECOMES THE QUESTION BECOMES THE RUB. THAT PROXIMITY MR. NARY, THAT, THAT WAS BASICALLY MY QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHETHER, UH, TEXAS CARDHOUSE AND THIS PARKWAY PROPERTY ARE BOTH UNDER U ONE ZONING? IS THAT UH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. CORRECT. I DON'T KNOW MY, TO CLARIFY MY TESTIMONY. SO THE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE USE IS ALLOWED IN MULTIPLE ZONING DISTRICTS, NOT JUST MU ONE. WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS THAT USE IS ALLOWED BY THE ZONING OF TEXAS CARDHOUSE AND IT IS ALSO ALLOWED BY THE ZONING OF THIS SITE. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. I'M NOT CERTAIN IF TEXAS CARDHOUSE IS MU ONE, BUT I AM CERTAIN IT ALLOWS THE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE. AND I AM CERTAIN THAT USE IS ALLOWED HERE. IT IS BY RIGHT ON BOTH PROPERTIES. THERE IS NO CRITERIA RELATED TO PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL IN THE CODE. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. MR. HOP, DID YOU HEAR WHAT HE SAID THERE? IN THE CURRENT CODE, THERE'S NO LANGUAGE TALKING ABOUT PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL OTHER THAN A DEAL THAT'S CALLED, HOLD ON. THAT'S IT. UH, OTHER THAN A DEAL THAT'S CALLED, WHAT'S IT CALLED? THERESA, WOULD YOU READ THAT FOR ME? A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW. OKAY. THAT'S WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OF WHAT'S IN THE CURRENT CODE. OKAY. BACK TO YOU MR. MAYOR. I WANT TO JUST CLARIFY WHEN WE SPEAK ABOUT RIGHTS AND USES AND THAT SORT OF THING. I'M DONE WITH WITH HER AND SO THANK YOU. SHE'S MY LAST WITNESS. I KNOW YOU HAVE THE UNENVIABLE TASK OF KEEPING TIME, I BELIEVE. OKAY. I I MEAN I'M GONNA GIVE EACH OF YOU THE RIGHT TO PRESENT YOUR CASE AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT REDUNDANT. SO THUS FAR WE'VE BEEN REASONABLY CLEAR ON THAT, CLEAN ON THAT. SO YOU CAN CONTINUE. WELL, FOR CLARITY, JUST FOR CLARITY FOR YOU MR. CHAIR, MY PLAN IS TO PRESENT A, A SUMMARY OF THE TESTIMONY AS PART OF OUR ARGUMENT HERE AND THEN I'LL BE DONE. AND I'M ANTICIPATING A REBUTTAL AND A CLOSING [03:55:01] UNDER YOUR RULES. I JUST MAKE SURE I'M CORRECT. YEAH, I'M, I'M FINE WITH THAT. I'VE GOT OTHER QUESTIONS AS WELL. SURE. BUT I MAY WAIT FOR MY QUESTIONS UNTIL I HEAR FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. I'M VERY ANXIOUS TO HEAR FROM YOU AS THE APPLICANT TO PROVE UP THE SIX PLUS INSPECTIONS THAT WENT FROM OKAY. UH, FROM THE, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO YOU AS AN APPLICANT. OKAY. SHE'S, BECAUSE THAT IS VERY RELEVANT TO ME. SHE'S WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW. JUST LIKE I HEARD MORE THAN FIVE EMPLOYEES OF BUILDING INSPECTION TOUCH THIS APPLICATION. YEP. SHE'S WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO YOU'LL APOLOGIZE. YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO ME AGAIN. UM, SO THIS IS NOT A ZONING CASE, OKAY? AND THANKFULLY FOR US IT IS. SO I'M NOT INTERPRETING THIS AS YOUR SUMMARY. NO, THIS IS MY POST DIRECT. CORRECT. AND THEN, THEN I HAVE A REBUTTAL IN CLOSING. SO LIKEWISE, IT IS THANKFULLY NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST. IF IT WAS EXTREME IMPORTANCE WOULD BE PLACED ON THE CONCERNS OF NEARBY HOMEOWNERS. TO BE HONEST, THAT IS A LARGE PART OF MY PRACTICE SEEKING ZONING CHANGES FOR CLIENTS. IF THAT'S WHAT WE WERE DOING TODAY, IT WOULD BE A VERY DIFFERENT HEARING. BUT PERMITS ARE LEGALLY DIFFERENT. THERE IS NO LEGISLATIVE COMPONENT TO PERMITTING. IF PERMITS DO NOT VIOLATE THE CITY CODE, THEY HAVE TO BE ISSUED. WHILE IT MAKES THINGS UNDERSTANDABLY UNCOMFORTABLE FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED, THE CONCERNS OF HOMEOWNERS ARE NOT LISTED IN THE DALLAS CITY CODE AS A CRITERION IN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS TO BE APPROVED. TO BE CLEAR, ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, CHAMPIONS DESIRE STRONGLY TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. THEY'VE SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS RESTORING THIS PROPERTY. THEY'RE PLANNING TO SPEND MILLIONS MORE OPERATING IT IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT HARM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY HOPE TO BECOME A PLACE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO GATHER, RELAX, CELEBRATE MILESTONES AND SOCIALIZE AS MEMBERS. IT'S JUST THAT THE CONCERNS OF HOMEOWNERS ARE NOT LEGALLY RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU TODAY. THE CITY, ON SOME LEVEL RECOGNIZES THE TRUTH OF WHAT I'M SAYING BECAUSE THEY INITIATED A PROCESS TO AMEND THEIR ZONING REGULATIONS THAT WOULD REQUIRE A DISCRETIONARY PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS WHERE THE CONCERNS OF HOMEOWNERS WOULD HAVE SPECIFIC LEGAL IMPORTANCE. BUT THAT DID NOT GET APPROVED. HAD IT GOTTEN APPROVED, WE COULDN'T HAVE MADE THIS APPLICATION TODAY. SO WHILE THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE COLLIN COUNTY DA BELIEVE THEY'RE CORRECT, THAT COMMERCIALIZED POKER IS ILLEGAL, THEY CAN POINT TO ZERO CONVICTIONS, ZERO APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS ON POINT. WE CAN POINT TO MULTIPLE COMMERCIALIZED POKER ESTABLISHMENTS IN TEXAS, INCLUDING IN THE CITY OF DALLAS THAT ARE CURRENTLY OPERATING WITH VALID CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY. TODAY, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT HAS NOW CONFIRMED THAT COMMERCIALIZED POKER CAN BE LEGAL IF OPERATED LIKE TCH. AND YOU'VE HEARD TESTIMONY THAT CHAMPIONS WILL OPERATE POKER EXACTLY LIKE TCH. THE LAW IS SUPPOSED TO BE APPLIED EVENLY AND FAIRLY TO ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS IN BUSINESSES. WHEN TWO PERMIT APPLICANTS PRESENT THE SAME APPLICATION, EITHER BOTH SHOULD BE DENIED OR BOTH SHOULD BE APPROVED. THAT HASN'T HAPPENED HERE. AND FUNDAMENTALLY THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR TO BE TREATED FAIRLY. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU MR. MANN. AND THEN, AND THEN DEPENDING ON WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS WE HAVE, THEN WE'LL SWITCH TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. UH, I'M LOOKING AT ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE, WERE SUBMITTED TO US AND ONE OF THEM IS THE, UH, FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS' OPINION DATED OCTOBER, AUGUST 27TH, 2024. YES, SIR. UH, AND I, I ASK THESE QUESTIONS FOR YOUR BENEFIT AND FOR ACTUALLY THE PUBLIC'S BENEFIT BECAUSE THERE WAS COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT'S LAW, WHAT THE, WHAT THE TRIAL COURT DID, WHAT THE APPEALS COURT DID, WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DID. I'M NOT A LAWYER, WE'RE NOT LAWYERS. WE ARE NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE ARE NOT, UH, IN THE OPINION DATED AUGUST 27TH. AND I'M GONNA READ RIGHT FROM THE OPINION AND I WANT YOU TO CONFIRM OR PLEASE CORRECT ME, IT TALKS ABOUT THE, THE, THE DISTRICT COURT'S HEARING AND THE DISTRICT COURT'S REVIEW OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS PREVIOUS CASE. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, IT DOES. AND THEN IT REVIEWS NOT ONLY THE PROCESS THAT THE, UM, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE APPEALS COURT. IT REVIEWS THE PROCESS THAT THE BOARD OF JUST WENT THROUGH, BUT ALSO ZEROED IN ON SECTION 47.04 OF THE PENAL CODE ENTITLED KEEPING A GAMBLING PLACE. AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE WHAT, WHAT IS AN OFFENSE IN THE GAMBLING IN THE CO IN THE PENAL CODE. AND THEN IT TALKS ABOUT IN THE OPINION WHAT THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION IS. YES. SO IT'S REVIEWING THE DISCUSSION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY HAD AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THEN AT THE DISTRICT COURT. CORRECT. AND IT TALKS ABOUT GAMBLING IN A PRIVATE PLACE, NO ECONOMIC BENEFIT, ALL THESE THINGS. IT'S SAYING THAT THIS IS WHAT OCCURRED AT THE DISTRICT COURT. [04:00:03] AND THEN THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE UNANIMOUS THREE JUDGE OPINION AND I WILL QUOTE SAYS WE REVERSE THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT CORRECT. AND RENDER JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE DECISION AND PROCESS OF THE BO BO OA THAT'S BOARD OF A JUDGMENT REINSTATING TCH H'S CO. TELL ME WHAT THAT MEANS IF A APPEALS COURT REVERSES THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT. THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT MEANS THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING. ARE YOU CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE PLEASE? IT MEANS THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING WAS INCORRECT AND IS NO LONGER LEGALLY APPLICABLE AND IT HAS BEEN REPLACED BY THE HIGHER COURT. OKAY. AND RENDER A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE DECISION AND THE PROCESS OF THE BOA REINSTATING THE TCH H'S CO AND I'M READING FROM THE JUDGMENT, THE, THE ORDER. YES. TELL ME WHAT THAT SECOND HALF MEANS. IT MEANS TC H'S CO IS VALID AND THE COURT UPHELD YOUR DECISION TO REINSTATE THEIR CO. OKAY. NOW I I, WHILE WE'RE ON THIS CASE, 'CAUSE THIS IS GONNA COME UP IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH ME ANSWERING. YEAH. I'M GONNA LET YOU FOR A MOMENT. OKAY. JUST BECAUSE I'VE HEARD IT. I'VE HEARD IT AND PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO CLASSIFY THIS AS A PROCEDURAL TECHNICALITY. SO, AND I APOLOGIZE, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF ESOTERIC APPELLATE LAW, BUT TO YOUR POINT, THIS IS THE HAND YOU'VE BEEN DEALT. SORRY FOR THE PUNT. OKAY. SO WHEN A COURT REVIEWS ONE OF YOUR DECISION CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE, PULL IT. WHEN A COURT REVIEWS PULL THE MIC TO WHEN A COURT REVIEWS ONE OF YOUR DECISIONS, THERE IS A STANDARD KNOWN AS ABUSIVE DISCRETION, WHICH IS APPLIED TO YOUR FINDINGS OF FACT. THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE WHEN YOU HAVE A VARIANCE CASE OR OFFENSE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION BECAUSE YOU'RE CONDUCTING A SPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF A PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY AND YOUR CODE CALLS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THE IMPACTS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AND A COURT IS NOT GOING TO INSERT ITS JUDGMENT OF A SITUATION LIKE THAT FOR YOURS UNLESS YOU DO SOMETHING NUTS AND THEY WON'T OVERTURN YOU. THAT ABUSE OF DISCRETION STANDARD DOES NOT APPLY TO A CONCLUSION OF LAW MADE BY THIS BODY. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT DISCUSSION ON PAGE EIGHT OF THE APPELLATE COURT OPINION WHERE IT SAYS, WITH RESPECT TO A ZONING BOARD'S FACTUAL FINDINGS, A REVIEWING COURT MAY NOT SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE BOARD. OUR ABUSE OF DISCRETION REVIEW IS NECESSARILY LESS DEFERENTIAL WHEN CONSIDERING LEGAL CONCLUSIONS BY THE ZONING BOARD AND IS SIMILAR TO A DE NOVO REVIEW. APOLOGIZE FOR THE LATIN TERM, BUT DE NOVO MEANS THEY IGNORE YOU AND THEY MAKE THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF THE LAW, WHICH MAKES SENSE BECAUSE THEY'RE A COURT OF LAW. SO THEY LOOKED AT WHETHER THE TEXAS PENAL CODE WAS VIOLATED BY TCH AND DID NOT SAY THEY COULDN'T OPERATE. THEY SAID THEY COULD. THAT WAS A LEGAL CONCLUSION THAT WAS REVIEWED DE NOVO. THAT'S WHY OUR POSITION IS THAT THAT DECISION IS BINDING BECAUSE THE CITY HAS CITED THE SAME TEXAS PENAL CODE PROVISION AND NO DIFFERENT FACTS. IS THERE ANY OTHER APPEALS COURT DECISION IN THE STATE OF TEXAS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE THAT IS OUT THERE? NO, THE CITY HAS CITED TOO THAT I'M HAPPY TO DIFFERENTIATE. I ASK THE QUESTION, IS THERE ANY OTHER APPEALS COURT DECISION OUT THERE? NO. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISTRICT COURT WHICH IS BELOW THE APPEALS COURT OUT THERE THAT HA THAT'S DEFINITIVE, THAT'S STILL ALIVE? JUST NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. DISTRICT COURT OPINIONS ARE NOT PUBLISHED. YOU ONLY GET TO SEE THIS ONE BECAUSE THE APPELLATE COURT REGURGITATED IT. SO I DON'T KNOW EVERY DISTRICT COURT OPINION. THAT'S ED. I'LL ASK THE SAME QUESTION OF THE OTHER, OF THE OTHER SIDE. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? MR. KOVI IS THE, HAS THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS PASSED A BILL OF LAW THAT PERMITS, UH, COMMERCIAL GAMBLING ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS? NO. THEY CREATED AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN 47.04 B OF THE TEXAS PENAL CODE, BUT THEY HAVE NOT CREATED AN AFFIRMATIVE ALLOWANCE. IF THAT'S YOUR QUESTION. THANK YOU. YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? LOOK, SHE DOES HAVE THE DATES IF YOU'D LIKE THEM. I'M SORRY SHE HAS THE DATES THAT YOU AND THE NUMBERS. I'M, I'M ALL EARS. SO JUST FOR FULL DISCLOSURE, I CAN ONLY SEE THE PLAN REVIEW SIDE AND I'LL BE REALLY QUICK. THIS WAS AN OLD PROJECT DOCS PROJECT WHEN IT GOT MIGRATED TO DALLAS. NOW I CAN'T SEE THOSE BACKEND RECORDS FOR INSPECTIONS. SO THAT'S JUST GONNA BE PROFESSIONAL OPINION ON THE INSPECTION PART WHEN I GET TO IT. 'CAUSE I CAN'T ACTUALLY PRO PROVIDE THOSE FACTS TO YOU. MAYBE THE CITY CAN I JUST, I NO LONGER HAVE ACCESS TO THAT BECAUSE OF [04:05:01] THE NEW PROGRAM. SO, UM, I'M GONNA START BACK FROM THE VERY BEGINNING WHEN THE CO WAS SUBMITTED WITH DATES AND WHAT ENTITIES WITHIN BUILDING INSPECTION PLAN REVIEW STAFF WORKED ON IT. UM, SO THE, THE INITIAL CO APPLICATION, THE ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MOST RECENTLY WAS SUBMITTED ON 10 0 7 20 24. THERE WERE EMAILS BACK AND FORTH WITH THE INTAKE TEAM TO NOTIFY THEM OF THAT SUBMITTAL. UM, THE INITIAL FEES FOR THE CO APPLICATION WERE PAID ON 10 21 20 24. THOSE FEES ARE GENERATED FROM THE INTAKE TEAM THAT'S PART OF THAT PRE-SCREEN PROCESS I DESCRIBED. UM, ONE OF THE PERMIT CENTERS PROJECT COORDINATORS REACHED OUT VIA EMAIL ON 10 24 TO ASK SOME DUPLICATE APPLICATION QUESTIONS BECAUSE THE 2021 CO STILL SHOWED ACTIVE IN THE SYSTEM, BUT IT HAD SINCE BEEN DENIED. SO WE RECTIFIED THAT. UM, THE CITY THROUGH THE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS REQUESTED REVISIONS ON 11 18 20 25 THAT WOULD'VE BEEN BUILDING CODE PLANS. 24 YOU MEAN? I'M SORRY, I WROTE 25 24. YES. 11 18 24 THAT WOULD'VE BEEN A BUILDING CODE PLANS EXAMINER. UM, A ZONING PLANS EXAMINER FROM THAT ZONING PLANS EXAMINER ON HIS EMAIL. HE COPIED HIS PLANS EXAMINER, SUPERVISOR AND THE CHIEF PLANNER IN THAT COMMUNICATION. UM, REVISIONS WERE RESUBMITTED ON 12 20 20 24 IN THE SYSTEM. EMAILS WERE FOLLOWED UP NOTIFYING THE CITY OF THAT RESUBMITTAL. FINAL FEES WERE PAID ON 1 6 25. THOSE FEES ARE GENERATED EITHER THROUGH THE INTAKE TEAM OR A PROJECT COORDINATOR GROUP. UM, THE APPROVED PLANS WERE RECEIVED ON 1 6 25. THAT'S GENERATED BY A COORDINATOR INDIVIDUAL THROUGH THE PROGRAM. UM, AND THEN THE FINAL CO WAS ISSUED FROM THE FIELD OFFICE 4 9 20 25. THE ONLY BODIES THAT WERE MISSING, WHY WOULD THERE BE A TIME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE SIX AND FOUR NINE INSPECTIONS HAVE TO BE CALLED AND PASSED IN THE FIELD. SO I, I GUESS WHAT I'M GOING AFTER IS, WHERE'S THE DOCUMENTATION ON THAT? RIGHT. I JUST CAN'T SEE IT. OKAY. IF WE WERE STILL IN PROJECT DOCS, I WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE IT. OKAY. BUT I CAN'T SEE THAT. BUT BASED ON MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, I CAN TELL YOU THAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO SCHEDULE A BUILDING INSPECTION. YOU'RE REQUIRED TO SCHEDULE A MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING INSPECTION. SOMETIMES YOU'RE REQUIRED TO SCHEDULE A HEALTH INSPECTION. UM, AND SOMETIMES YOU'RE REQUIRED TO SCHEDULE A ZONING INSPECTION, BUT YOU CAN SEE HOW WE'VE SURPASSED THE FIVE PLUS INDIVIDUALS TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? LET ME, LET ME LOOK AT QUICK SECOND ON MY NOTES HERE. ONE SECOND PLEASE. DID YOUR LAND, MR. MANN, DID YOUR LAND USE STATEMENT THAT YOU PROVIDED BACK ON, UH, I'M GOING BACK TO HER DATE ON OCTOBER 7TH, EVER GET AMENDED OR CHANGED? NO. DID IT REFERENCE POKER? YES, TWICE. DID ANYONE, BETWEEN THE TIME PERIOD OF OCTOBER 7TH AND APRIL 9TH TO OCTOBER 7TH OF 24 AND APRIL 9TH OF 25, EVER ASK ABOUT POKER? NOT OF ME. NOT OF MS. K? NOT OF MY CLIENT. UH, THAT'S, I HAVE, THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT. YES. DID YOU, UH, I THOUGHT YOUR QUESTION ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE HAD TOUCHED THIS WAS DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHO HAD ACTUALLY BEEN ON SITE AT THE PROPERTY DOING THE, DOING THE, UH, INSPECTIONS. IT DID. AND I THINK THE WITNESS SAID THAT SHE DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THAT. THE GREEN TAGS. THAT WAS MY ORIGINAL, THAT WAS MY ORIGINAL QUESTION. IS THE GREEN TAG SIDE OF IT? YES. AND CORRECT. I DON'T KNOW IF, DOES THE CITY STILL ISSUE GREEN TAGS ANYMORE OR IS IT ON THE SYSTEM? BECAUSE, BECAUSE SHE INDICATED IN HER FINAL COMMENT THAT OR HE INDICATED THERE WAS MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL BUILDING AND ZONING THAT THERE WERE THE FIVE, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS THE FIVE, BUT BUT THERE ARE NO DATES ON ANY OF THAT. YOU'RE CORRECT. WELL, I'M GONNA ASK THE BUILDING OF OFFICIAL ABOUT THESE. OKAY. GREEN, YELLOW, OR RED TAGS. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. MANN AT THIS TIME? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, UM, MR. RODRIGUEZ, WE WILL GIVE YOU EQUAL DEFERENCE ON TIME SCOPE, UM, AS WE GAVE THE A APPLICANT. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THIS CASE IS ABOUT CORRECTING A MISTAKE AND [04:10:01] ENSURING THAT THE CITY'S ZONING AND PERMITTING PROCESS COMPLIES WITH STATE LAW. THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER GAMBLING IS ILLEGAL IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. IT CLEARLY IS UNDER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION AND THE PENAL CODE. THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER COMMERCIAL POKER GAMES CONSTITUTE GAMBLING. THEY CLEARLY DO. THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER POKER SHOULD BE LEGAL IN TEXAS. THAT QUESTION IS BEFORE THE COURTS. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER CHAMPIONS SHOULD HAVE A CO FOR ITS POKER BUSINESS IS ALREADY BEFORE THE ONE 93RD DISTRICT COURT, WHICH IS WAITING FOR A FINAL RESOLUTION FROM THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT. AND I WANNA ADDRESS THIS REALLY QUICKLY AT THE BEGINNING. YES, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT DENIED THE BUILDING OFFICIALS PETITION FOR REVIEW ON SEPTEMBER 5TH, A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO. WE ARE STILL WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD ALLOWED TO FILE A MOTION FOR REHEARING OF THAT DECISION. AND THAT IS UNDER REVIEW IN THE CITY RIGHT NOW. SO I'M NOT PREPARED TO SAY RIGHT NOW TODAY THAT THERE, THE SUPREME COURT IS THE FINAL WORD. I WILL GET TO THE MEANING OF THE DENIAL OF THE REVIEW AS WELL AS THE MEANING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION. A LITTLE BIT FURTHER ON IN MY PRESENTATION. BUT SUFFICE IT TO SAY WE HAVE A DISAGREEMENT IN TERMS OF THE LEGAL MEANING OF THOSE COURT OPINIONS. THE NARROW ISSUE HERE TODAY IS WHETHER THE BUILDING OFFICIAL PROPERLY REVOKED THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY THAT WAS MISTAKENLY ISSUED ON APRIL 9TH, 2025. I HAVE A SHORT POWERPOINT PRESENTATION. UH, I HAVE PRINTED OUT COPIES OF IT AS WELL IF THE, IF THE BOARD MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT AFTERWARDS, BUT IF I COULD ASK THAT IT BE SHOWN NOW. UM, THANK YOU AGAIN. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE CO WAS, UM, PROPERLY REVOKED WHEN IT WAS MISTAKENLY ISSUED. AND THE ANSWER TO THAT IS YES, IT IS REQUIRED UNDER THE DALLAS CITY CODE THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL REVOKE A CO THAT WAS ISSUED IN ERROR. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. REVOCATION OF THE CO WAS MANDATORY UNDER THE DALLAS CITY CODE IN CHAPTER 52, SECTION 3 0 6 0.5 A CO MAY NOT BE ISSUED FOR ANY USE THAT VIOLATES STATE LAW. SO EVEN IF THE ZONING ALLOWS A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE BY RIGHT IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT, THE ZONING REVIEW IS SUPPOSED TO ADDRESS WHETHER THE LAND USE ITSELF IS ILLEGAL UNDER STATE LAW. AND IF A CO IS ISSUED IN ERROR AS IT WAS HERE, SECTION 3 0 6 POINT 13 SECTION ONE REQUIRES THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO REVOKE IT. HE HAS NO DISCRETION KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLES HERE. OUR STAFF ERROR DOES NOT CREATE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS ON THE PART OF AN APPLICANT. A CO THAT'S ISSUED AN ERROR IS VOID ABIO, THAT'S A, A LATIN PHRASE THAT MEANS INVALID FROM THE START. AND AGAIN, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS NO DISCRETION TO PERMIT AN ILLEGAL LAND USE. IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, I WANTED TO ADDRESS BRIEFLY, ALTHOUGH MS. KAY I THINK DID, UH, DID ADDRESS SOME OF THIS, HOW THE CO REVIEW PROCESS ACTUALLY WORKS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS BECAUSE I KNOW THAT YOU BOARD MEMBERS HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS LAST TIME. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS THE STATUTORY, UH, AND LEGAL AUTHORITY WHO ISSUES COS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AND CHAPTER 52 OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE IN PRACTICE, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, EVEN THOUGH HIS NAME IS ON ALL OF THE COS, HE DELEGATES THOU THOSE REVIEWS AND THOSE APPROVALS TO STAFF ACROSS MULTIPLE DIVISIONS, INCLUDING THE ZONING DIVISION THAT MS. KEY, UH, MS. KAY, UH, DESCRIBED. UM, THE COMMERCIAL PERMITTING, THE DIVISION, THE RESIDENTIAL PERMITTING DIVISION, AND THE INSPECTIONS DIVISION, THOSE ARE ALL SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THERE IS A SHARED WORKFLOW PERMIT SUBMITTALS FLOW THROUGH BOTH THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DIVISIONS. AND I'M GONNA SHOW YOU A CHART ON THE NEXT SLIDE THAT SHOWS SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS OVER. UH, BUT THE SUBMITTALS FLOW THROUGH [04:15:01] BOTH THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DIVISIONS AND THE ZONING DIVISION. AND A CO CANNOT BE FINALIZED IN DALLAS WITHOUT ZONING AND BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS BOTH BEING SATISFIED ONCE THOSE CLEARANCES ARE PROVIDED, THE SYSTEM GENERATES THE CO IN THE NAME OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WITH RESPECT TO BUT EACH, BUT EACH OF THESE DIVISIONS, I'M LOOKING AT YOUR, YOUR DEAL. YES. EACH OF THESE ARE UNDER THE AUTHORITY RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS NOT OVER THE ZONING DIVISION. NO, SIR. THE, THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR IS, BUT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITY AND I'M GONNA SHOW IT ON THE NEXT SLIDE. HOPEFULLY THAT'LL CLEAR IT UP A LITTLE BIT. UM, IN THIS CASE, THE MISTAKE THAT WAS MADE WAS A ZONING DIVISION ERROR. THE STAFF INAPPROPRIATELY APPROVED A PROHIBITED USE. AND AGAIN, THE BUILDING OFFICIALS LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO CORRECT THAT WHEN IT'S DISCOVERED. AND THE REVOCATION IS WHAT CORRECTS THE ERROR. IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE HERE I HAVE THE CHART. UH, THIS CHART WAS ACTUALLY, UM, RELEASED BY THE CITY MANAGER IN A MEMO IN JUNE OF 2024 AND SHOWS SOME DEPARTMENTAL REORGANIZATION THAT TOOK PLACE AT THAT TIME. AND IT MAY BE, HOPEFULLY YOU CAN SEE IT ON YOUR SCREEN, BUT IT DOES SHOW THAT THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF EMILY LOU, THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, UH, THE BUILDING OF OFFICIAL SAM ISKANDER WHO IS HERE TODAY, UM, HAS RESPONSIBILITY OVER, I'M CON I'M CONFUSED. OKAY, SO YOU, YOU, YOU'VE SENT US DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS HERE. YOU'RE, YOU GAVE A A, A CHARGE THAT I SEE HERE AND I'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE. UH, THIS IS, I THINK THIS IS A MEMO FROM ROBIN BENTLEY, THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS THAT SENT OUT TALKING ABOUT THIS. 'CAUSE I REMEMBER THAT. YEAH. OKAY. SO WHAT YOU JUST SAID WAS, IT'S EMILY LIU THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS, NOT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID? I SAID THAT EMILY LOU IS THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR OVER THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT. SO SHOULD WE ASK FOR THE DIRECTOR TO BE HERE TODAY? I, I'M, I'M NOW REALLY, 'CAUSE AT THE LAST HEARING I SAID PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT THE RIGHT PERSON'S HERE THAT CAN EXPLAIN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. BECAUSE UNDER THE CODE WE ARE TRYING TO REVIEW WHETHER THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MADE AN ERROR IN THEIR DECISION. THAT'S CORRECT. AND WHAT YOU'RE JUST SAYING IS IT'S NOT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, IT'S THE DIRECTOR. I I SAID THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S NAME IS ON ALL COS THE CO IS ISSUED IN HIS NAME AND THE CO IS ISSUED WHEN THE DEPARTMENTAL CLEARANCES ARE DONE. AND I DO HAVE THE PEOPLE HERE THAT CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, MR. NEWMAN, I HAVE MEGAN WIER HERE. I HAVE SAM SCANNER, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HERE. I HAVE JENNIFER GYER WHO OKAY, GOOD. IS FAMILIAR WITH THE SPECIFIC REVIEWS. OKAY. MS. DAVIS HAS A QUESTION. YES MA'AM. DOES THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAVE ULTIMATE ACCOUNTABILITY? DOES THE BUCK STOP WITH A BUILDING OFFICIAL YES OR NO? FOR COS YES. YES. OKAY. SO, UH, SO I, I GUESS, UM, YOU, YOU, YOU, ANYWAY, SO THAT'S THE POINT. IT'S THE BUCK STOPS WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. SO IS IT THE SAME BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT SUPPOSEDLY INCORRECTLY ISSUED TWO OTHER CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY? I DON'T BELIEVE THAT MR. ISKANDER WAS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AT THAT TIME. NO, IT WAS ANDREW ESPINOZA. HE IS NO LONGER WITH THE CITY. SO THAT PERSON, ACCORDING TO THE CITY, INCORRECTLY ISSUED THOSE OTHER TWO COS YES. OKAY. AND THE CURRENT BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS BEEN WITH THE CITY FOR HOW LONG? UH, I'M NOT SURE, BUT I'M SURE HE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. HE'S BEEN WITH THE CITY A LONG TIME. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG HE'S BEEN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. SO HE'S BEEN WITH THE CITY, I'M ASSUMING HE WORKED WITH THE PREVIOUS BUILDING OFFICIAL. I ASSUME SO, YES. SO WE'VE HAD THREE, THREE DIFFERENT CASES FOR, FOR THESE TYPES OF INSTITUTIONS WHERE THE CITY IS SAYING THAT THOSE COS WERE ISSUED AN ERROR. HOW COMMON IS IT THAT THE CITY IS ISSUING COS AN ERROR? AN ERROR? BECAUSE MISTAKES HAPPEN AND I BELIEVE MAYBE I ASKED HOW COMMON, HOW COMMON IS IT? OH, I'M SORRY. HOW OFTEN DOES THAT I DID NOT HEAR YOUR QUESTION. HOW COMMON IS IT? I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. IT HAPPENS. AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN MISTAKES ARE MADE IS THAT THE CODE REQUIRES THEM TO BE CORRECTED. AND THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED HERE. THE POINT IS, THE POINT IS THAT THE MISTAKES WERE MADE [04:20:01] REPEATEDLY. OKAY. AND YOU DON'T HAVE THE STATS TO TELL ME HOW OFTEN THAT HAPPENS AT THE CITY? I PERSONALLY DO NOT HAVE THAT. NO, BUT I CAN TELL YOU FOR EXAMPLE, UH, THAT, UM, THE CITY, UM, WHEN LET'S SAY A CITY EMPLOYEE MAKES A MISTAKE AND IS NEGLIGENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES, UM, THERE ARE LAWS THAT PROTECT THE CITY FROM BEING, UH, SUED EVERY TIME SOMEBODY MAKES A MISTAKE BECAUSE IT'S HUMAN NATURE. WE HAVE 13,000 EMPLOYEES PLUS. AND IT HAPPENS. IF YOU'RE, I I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. I APOLOGIZE. I COULD PROVIDE INFORMATION LATER ABOUT HOW COMMON IT IS, BUT I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THAT MISTAKES HAPPEN ON A REGULAR BASIS. I THINK RESPECTFULLY, THE PART OF THE FRUSTRATION THAT THAT WILL BE FURTHER EVIDENCED IS OCTOBER 16TH OR OCTOBER 7TH TO APRIL 15TH. THAT'S SIX AND A HALF MONTHS TO DISCOVER A MISTAKE. UH, IT, IT, IT, UH, AGAIN, I GOTTA SAY IT OUT LOUD SO I KEEP FOCUSED. OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MADE AN ERROR IN THE REVOCATION. BUT IN ORDER TO GET THERE, WE HAVE TO FIND OUT WHO, WHAT, WHY, AND WHEN. I UNDERSTAND, AND IN SIX AND A HALF MONTHS HOW I THINK YOU HEARD PREVIOUS TESTIMONY, AND YOU'LL HEAR FROM OUR WITNESS AS WELL, THAT THERE WERE OTHER INSPECTIONS AND THINGS GOING ON, AND THAT IS WHY THE PROCESS TOOK A PERIOD OF MONTHS. MS. HAYDEN HAS A QUESTION. SO CAN, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THESE OTHER TWO INSTITUTIONS OR ESTABLISHMENTS ARE, HAVE NOT HAD THEIR CEOS REVOKED? I'M, I'M A LITTLE UNCLEAR ON THAT. IF THERE, WHICH, UH, WHICH ESTABLISHMENTS YOU REFERRING TO OR SOMETHING? THERE WAS ANOTHER TEXAS CARDHOUSE 2 1 4 IN TEXAS CARDHOUSE. I MEAN, IF THEY'RE DOING THE SAME THING THAT THIS ESTABLISHMENT IS. YES. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? WELL, THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT TEXAS CARD HOUSE, UH, HAD ITS CO REVOKED. IT CAME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. YOU OVERTURNED THE REVOCATION. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THEN FILED A LAWSUIT. UM, AND, UH, THAT LAWSUIT WENT TO TRIAL IN JUDGE MOYES COURT. THAT JUDGE MOYE, AS HAS BEEN DESCRIBED, UM, OVERTURNED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT WAS THEN APPEALED TO THE DALLAS COURT OF APPEAL, WHICH OVERTURNED JUDGE MOYE THAT WAS THEN APPEALED TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, WHICH THUS FAR HAS DECLINED TO HEAR THE CASE. THE REASON THE TEXAS CARDHOUSE IS OPERATING TODAY IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE A COURT ORDER ALLOWING IT, NOT BECAUSE THE CITY HAS ACQUIESCED TO IT OR I IS IN AGREEMENT THAT THAT SHOULD BE HAPPENING. I, I THINK SAME WITH THE OTHER. I I THINK PART OF HER QUESTION WAS P SOCIAL AND SPORTS. OKAY. TWO OTHERS. THOSE ARE TWO. I I, UM, THE STAFF WHO'S HERE MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT, BUT WITH RESPECT TO PH SOCIAL, I'VE HEARD OF THAT ONE. UM, THEY ARE OPERATING WITH A RESTAURANT CO. UM, THE POKER USE IF IT'S HAPPENING, IS CLEARLY IN ILLEGAL LAND USE. AND THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED BY THE CITY'S, UH, CODE DEPARTMENT. AND, UM, THAT IS UNDER REVIEW RIGHT NOW. I'M NOT AT LIBERTY TO SAY WHAT LEGAL ACTIONS WE MAY OR MAY NOT TAKE. OKAY. I I THINK THAT'S PART OF WHAT YOU WERE AFTER MS. HAY, CORRECT? YES. MR. OVITZ HAS A QUESTION. UM, I ASKED THE APPLICANT'S, UH, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT WHAT, WHETHER THERE WAS LEGISLATION IN TEXAS THAT PERMITTED, UM, LEGAL GA COMMERCIAL GAMBLING ESTABLISHMENTS AND THEY SAID NO THERE WAS NOT. SO, UM, AND YOU'VE MADE THE STATEMENT THAT THIS IS AN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY UNDER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. I BELIEVE YOU REFERENCED GAMBLING IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE TEXAS. YEAH. CAN CAN YOU, CAN YOU, JUST TO SATISFY MY CURIOSITY, I, I CITE ME EXACTLY WHERE, WHERE AND WHAT IT SAYS THAT SAYS THAT IN THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION? YEAH. WHAT IS IT? I BELIEVE IT'S CITED IN OUR BRIEF. UM, I CAN, I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW THAT I CAN, YOU CAN POINT ME TO THE PAGE AND I'D APPRECIATE IT. JUST GIVE ME ONE MOMENT. TEXAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE THREE, SECTION 47 A [04:25:01] IN THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. THERE, PAGE NUMBER IN OR PACKET, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S IN OUR BRIEF, BUT THAT IS THE CITATION TO THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION PROVISION. OKAY. UM, IF YOU HAVE IT THERE, COULD YOU, IF IT'S NOT TOO LENGTHY, COULD YOU READ IT? I HAVE A LEGAL CASE. I DON'T THINK THAT THE LEGAL OPINION SETS FORTH THE FULL, LET ME SEE. SECTION, UH, EXCUSE ME. TEXAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE THREE, SECTION 47, UH, AFFIRMATIVELY REQUIRES THE LEGISLATURE TO PASS LAWS PROHIBITING LOTTERIES. THERE ARE COURT OPINIONS THAT TALK ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF LOTTERIES AND GAMBLING IN MANY, MANY FORMS AS CONSIDERED A LOTTERY. AND THERE ARE REPORTED OPINIONS THAT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS WHETHER EIGHT LINER MACHINES ARE LOTTERIES, FOR EXAMPLE, WHETHER, UM, GAMBLING WITH CARDS FOR MONEY THAT IS ADDRESSED SPECIFICALLY IN THE TEXAS PENAL CODE. SO THE CONSTITUTION IS SAYING THE LEGISLATURE HAS TO PASS SOMETHING IN ORDER TO MAKE THOSE ACTIVITIES LEGAL. AND THEY HAVE NOT DONE THAT. IS THAT A CORRECT SUMMARY OF THAT? THE, THE, UH, THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT ALLOWED TO PASS LAWS THAT MAKE GAMBLING LEGAL. THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO. THEY, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO. WELL, THEY CAN, THEY JUST BE OVERTURNED POTENTIALLY BY A COURT OF LAW, I SUPPOSE THAT'S TRUE. YES. RIGHT. SO, I MEAN, NO ONE TELLS THE LEGISLATURE WHAT THEY CAN OR CANNOT DO. SO IT'S A FUNCTION OF THEM BEING OVERTURNED. THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS THEM FROM DOING THAT SOMEWHERE, SOME, AND, AND THEY, THEY, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT WOULD'VE TO INTERPRET THAT. I PRESUME THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE LOTTERY IN TEXAS. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE RACING AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THOSE REQUIRE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IN ORDER TO BE LEGAL IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. I'VE GOT MR. NRI. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. SO, SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE DECISION BY THE FIFTH CIRCUIT APPELLATE COURT IN THE TEXAS COURTHOUSE CASE IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. AND IF THAT IS YOUR ASSERTION, WHY DID THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT DECLINE TO HEAR AN ADDITIONAL APPEAL TO RULE IT? SO THE SIMPLE ANSWER TO THAT IS THAT THE DALLAS COURT OF APPEALS COMPLETELY SIDESTEPPED THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT COMMERCIAL POKER ESTABLISHMENTS ARE ILLEGAL IN TEXAS, THE OPINION STATES THAT THE COURT OF, UH, THAT THE TRIAL COURT HERE IN TEXAS COURTHOUSE COMMITTED ERROR BECAUSE IT DID NOT GIVE DUE DEFERENCE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THAT'S WHAT THE OPINION SAYS. THERE'S NOTHING IN THE OPINION THAT SAYS COMMERCIAL GAMBLING IS LEGAL IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT SAY THAT, NOR HAS THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT SAID THAT, IN MY VIEW. THEY JUST HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE ISSUE. OKAY. BUT IN THEIR RULING, THEY DID BASICALLY DEFER BACK TO US. AND IN SAYING THAT WE AS A BOARD DID NOT ABUSE OUR DISCRETION IN MAKING SUCH A DECISION AS TO ALLOW IT. THAT IS SO, SO LEGALLY, IT'S, IT'S STILL, ULTIMATELY IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURTS. IT'S NOT, WE'RE NOT, LIKE THE CHAIRMAN SAID, WE'RE NOT A COURT OF LAW AND THERE ARE PE YOU KNOW, I, I HEAR ALL THIS. WELL, ILLEGAL USE, LAND USE, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. WELL, THAT'S ALL AN OPINION UNTIL THE COURTS ACTUALLY DECIDE WHETHER IT'S ILLEGAL OR WHETHER IT'S ILLEGAL. AS OF RIGHT NOW, IN MY MIND, IT'S JUST OPINION ON BOTH SIDES. I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU, YOU AS TO THE, AS TO THE LEGALITY. SO THAT'S, THAT IS CORRECT. AND THE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO CHAMPIONS IS ALREADY BEFORE THE COURT, UH, IF, IF, IF THIS CA IF WE WERE NOT HERE TODAY ON THIS NEW CO APPLICATION AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVOCATION, THEN CHAMPIONS CLUB WOULD BE IN THE POSITION OF HAVING, UH, THE COURT GIVE DEFERENCE TO YOUR PRIOR OPINION STATING THAT THE DENIAL OF THEIR CO WAS PROPER. I, I WANNA READ AGAIN FROM THE AUGUST 27TH, 2024 COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF DALLAS, FIFTH FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. AND IT, IT'S 11 PAGES, AND IT GOES THROUGH DETAIL BY DETAIL OF THE BOARD SAID THIS, THE BOARD DID THAT. THE BOARD'S PROCESS WAS THIS. THE BOARD HAD THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PENAL CODE AND SAID, WE REALLY CAN'T DECIDE WHAT IS THE PENAL CODE, INTERPRETS OR NOT. IT GOES IN AND SAYS THAT IT, IT TALKS ABOUT KEEPING A GAMBLING PLACE, SECTION 47.04. AND THEN IT TALKS ABOUT THE AFFIRMATIVE [04:30:01] DEFENSES. IT TALKS, AND THEN IT TALKS ABOUT WHAT THE DISTRICT COURT SAID THAT WE CANNOT ISSUE AN ORDER THAT SAYS THAT AN ILLEGAL ORDER IN THE ILLEGAL ORDER WAS THAT IT WAS THAT ALLOW GAMBLING. AND THEN THE LAST LINE AGAIN SAYS, WE REVERSED THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT AND RENDER JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE DECISION AND THE PROCESS OF THE BO OA REINSTATING T-C-H-S-C-O. I'LL ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION AS I ASKED YOUR, UH, WORTHY OPPONENT WHEN IT REVERSES THE TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT MEANS THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT, FINAL JUDGMENT THAT WAS ISSUED IN THE LEGAL CASE IS SET ASIDE. SO WE SHOULDN'T BE TALKING ABOUT THAT ANYMORE. IT'S THE ONLY COURT THAT HAS ACTUALLY PASSED ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT IT'S ILLEGAL. NO, THE APPEALS COURT DID IT. IT, AND AS I SAID, AND I WILL KEEP SAYING, WE'RE NOT JUDGES, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE WE, WE'RE NOT A COURT OF LAW. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DECIDE LAND USE. AND AS A GENTLEMAN EARLIER SAID, TODAY, RULES, FACTS AND LAW. AND I WROTE IT DOWN AND I'VE BEEN TAKING NOTES SINCE THEN. AND THE WAY WE TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE LAW IS WE GO, OKAY, WHAT'S THE COMPETENT JURISDICTION OF THE LAW? IT'S A DISTRICT COURT, APPEALS COURT OF THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, AND YOU JUST AGREED THAT IF THIS ORDER HERE REVERSES THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT, IT SETS IT ASIDE. SO WE CAN NO LONGER LOOK TO WHAT JUDGE MOYE IN ALL DUE RESPECT HIS GUT SET ASIDE, AND THEN FOR IT TO BE APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT. I ASKED YOUR WORTHY OPPONENT, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN AN APPEALS COURT DECISION FOR REVIEW IS NOT FOR REVIEW? WHAT HAPPENS? TELL US WHAT HAPPENS. WHAT'S THE EFFECT OF THAT, OF AN APPEAL OF AN APPEALS COURT DECISION? ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT? YES. OKAY. SO YES, IF AN APPEAL OF A, OF A COURT OF APPEALS, UM, IS YOU CAN MAKE A, AN APPLICATION FOR A PETITION FOR REVIEW TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT COURT, AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. DISCRETIONARY? YES. AND THEY GRANT VERY FEW OF THEM. THEY CORRECT. THEY DID. THEY THEY DECLINED TO REVIEW IT AGAIN. THEY DID NOT. THE MAKE. SO WHAT THEY DID NOT, WHAT IS THE NET EFFECT OF THAT? THAT THE NET EFFECT OF IT SO FAR IS THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION STANDS. OKAY. AND THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION, IF I COULD, YOU QUOTED FROM THE OPINION, IF YOU'D ALLOW ME TO DO THE SAME THING, UH, ON PAGE EIGHT, OUR ABUSE OF DISCRETION REVIEW IS NECESSARILY LESS DEFERENTIAL WHEN CONSIDERING ANY LEGAL CONCLUSIONS BY THE ZONING BOARD AND IS SIMILAR IN NATURE TO A DE NOVO REVIEW. MEANING THEY JUST LOOK AT IT WITH FRESH EYES. THEY DON'T GIVE ANY PRESUMPTIONS OF, UM, LEGALITY OR ILLEGALITY. AND THEN, UM, AND THEN IN THE LAST, UM, LINE, YES, WE REVERSED THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT AND RENDER JUDGING, UH, RENDER JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE BOA REINSTATING THE CCF. SO THAT IS THE EFFECT WITH RESPECT TO TEXAS CARDHOUSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP IN THE CASE, I, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE ELSE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO LOOK TO. AND ARE YOU TELLING US, REPRESENTING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO THE CITY OF DALLAS, THAT WE ARE TO IGNORE THE, WHAT THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT DECIDING? NO, OF COURSE NOT. SO I WOULD NEVER SAY THAT. OKAY. BUT, BUT THE COURT OF APPEALS LOOKED AT THE FACTS AND, AND THE RECORD THAT WAS BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND, AND REVERSED AND CONCLUDED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WAS CORRECT, REASONABLY REACHED. REASONABLY REACHED ITS CONCLUSION, AND THAT THERE REVERSED AND REVERSED AN ENTIRETY WITH THE ENTIRETY REVERSED THE DISTRICT COURTS? YES. THEY DIDN'T SAY THE TRIAL. THE DISTRICT COURT WAS CORRECT ON SOME, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WAS CORRECT ON SOME THEY WERE WRONG ON, SOME WRONG ON ANOTHER. THEY REVERSED. AND ISN'T IT NOT TRUE? A LOT OF TIMES, AND I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT A LOT OF TIMES WHEN AN APPEALS COURT HEARS A CASE THEY REMAND, THEY SEND IT BACK TO THE ORIGINATE. IN THIS CASE, THEY RENDERED A DECISION. WELL, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT BECAUSE THE STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISIONS IS SUBSTANTIAL REVIEW. SO IF THERE IS ANY EVIDENCE IN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RECORD, THEN THE COURT OF APPEALS OR THE, I'M SORRY, THE REVIEWING COURT IS SUPPOSED TO UPHOLD IT. AND THAT'S THE ISSUE WE HAVE HERE, IS THAT IN OUR VIEW, IN THE VIEW OF THE CITY, IN OUR LEGAL POSITION, THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS BUSINESS MODEL, UH, CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGAL LAND USE IS A LEGAL ISSUE. AND COURTS DO NOT GIVE DEFERENCE TO ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS OF THE CITY ON LEGAL ISSUES. WELL, THEY DIDN'T GIVE DEFERENCE TO THE DISTRICT COURT EITHER. THEY THEY REVERSED HIS ENTIRE DECISION. [04:35:01] YOU'RE CORRECT. SO THEREFORE IT NEVER OCCURRED AND THEY SIDESTEPPED THE ISSUE. LEGAL, THEY DID NOT ADDRESS THE LEGAL ISSUE. RESPECTFULLY, THAT'S LEGAL JARGON EITHER, EITHER THAT THAT DECISION STANDS OR DOESN'T. MS. DAVIS, HOW MANY, UM, ORGANIZATIONS LIKE SHUFFLE 2 1 4 AND THE TEXAS CARDHOUSE, HOW MANY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS ARE OPERATING RIGHT NOW? I DUNNO. OKAY. DOES OUR, AM I ABLE TO ASK? YOU CAN ASK ANYONE YOU WANT. DOES THE PLAINTIFF HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, APPLICANT? I'M SO SORRY. IT'S ALRIGHT. IT'S ALRIGHT. NOT DOING WELL WITH MY TERMINOLOGY TODAY. , MR. MANN, AT LEAST, AND THIS IS, WHY DON'T YOU JUST SAY IT SO I'M NOT SAYING YOUR TESTIMONY. I THINK IT'S CLOSER TO COME SAY IT ON THE MIC. BE VERY CONSERVATIVE. COME SAY, OKAY, WHAT DID YOU SAY SIR? I SAID THANK YOU. AT LEAST 70. I THINK IT'S CLOSER TO A HUNDRED, BUT I'M TRYING TO BE PRETTY CONSERVATIVE AT LAST COUNT IT WAS 85. OKAY. YOU GAVE THREE NUMBERS BY THE WAY. YOU SAID 70, 85 AND A HUNDRED SOMETHING SMALL BUSINESS IS HARD. YOU GO TO BUSINESS SOMETIMES, REMEMBER, REMEMBER RULES, FACTS, LAW. SO LET'S STICK WITH FACTS. YOU GAVE THREE NUMBERS, MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST ONE SECOND. LET MS. DAVIS FINISH. SO I, I GUESS I'M STRUGGLING WITH, I, I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE CREDIBILITY HERE BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF THESE THAT ARE OPERATING CURRENTLY. AND IF I LOOKED AT, YOU KNOW, YOUR DEFINITION OF WHAT IS ILLEGAL, YOU'RE SAYING IT'S GAMBLING. THE APPLICANT IS SAYING THAT POKER IS NOT CONSIDERED GAMBLING. SO ACCORDING TO YOUR RATIONALE, ALL OF THESE OTHER COS WOULD'VE BEEN ISSUED AN ERROR IF YOU USE THE SAME LOGIC LOOKING AT OTHER CITIES. CORRECT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS OR THE, UM, REVIEW PROCESS OF OTHER CITIES ARE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF OTHER CITIES HAVE HAVE ELECTED TO LITIGATE THIS ISSUE IN ORDER TO POTENTIALLY GET CLARITY FROM THE COURTS IN THE SAME WAY THAT DALLAS HAS. THAT IS WHAT DALLAS DECIDED TO DO. WE ARE REALLY NOT CONCERNED WITH WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE DOING IN OTHER CITIES. WE'RE CONCERNED WITH WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. AND TO ANSWER YOUR, YOUR OTHER QUESTION, THE TEXAS PENAL CODE, UM, DESCRIBES, UM, GAMBLING, UM, A PERSON COMMITS AN OFFENSE IF HE PLAYS AND BETS FOR MONEY OR OTHER THINGS OF VALUE. ANY GAME PLAYED WITH CARDS POKER IS ILLEGAL. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT YOU'RE SAYING POKER IS POKER'S ILLEGAL, BUT THAT'S NOT OUR CHARGE TODAY. I UNDERSTAND THAT. IT IS A IS WE'RE, WE'RE HERE TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ISSUED THE CO AN ERROR. AND THIS ONE BOARD MEMBER IS REALLY HAVING TROUBLE REALLY BELIEVING A LOT OF THE, THE THINGS THAT I'M HEARING FROM THE CITY. I MEAN, NOT ONLY DID THE CURRENT BUILDING OFFICIAL SUPPOSEDLY ISSUE THE CO AN ERROR, THE PREVIOUS ONE ISSUED TWO OTHERS IN ERROR AND, AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO JUST, YOU KNOW, AND, AND WE'VE GOT THE DOCUMENTATION, THE LEGAL DOCUMENTATION THAT IS UPHELD OUR INITIAL DECISION. THIS BOARD'S INITIAL DECISION. I I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS. MY ARGUMENT AGAIN IS THAT IT IS THE OPINION OF THE CITY OF DALLAS IN OUR LEGAL POSITION THAT THIS BUSINESS MODEL VIOLATES THE TEXAS PENAL CODE AND CONSTITUTES IN ILLEGAL LAND USE. THERE WERE COS THAT WERE ISSUED IN ERROR. OUR CODE REQUIRES THAT THOSE BE REVOKED. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN TEXAS CARDHOUSE, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN SHUFFLE 2 1 4. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN THE MATTER THAT WE'RE HERE ON TODAY. AND SO THAT, I MEAN, OUR LEGAL POSITION HAS BEEN CONSISTENT FROM DAY ONE. WE HAVE BEEN LITIGATING THIS ISSUE TO AGAIN, TRY TO GET SOME CLARITY FROM THE COURT SYSTEM ABOUT THE ACTUAL UNDERLYING LEGAL ISSUE. MR. UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, UM, A LOT OF, UH, EXCERPTS HAVE BEEN READ FROM COURT DECISIONS RELATING TO TEXAS COURTHOUSE AND THE APPEAL OF A BOARD OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION, WHICH WAS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, MADE A DECISION. IT WAS APPEALED. IT ENDED UP AT THE SUPREME COURT AND YOU WERE READING WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAD TO SAY ABOUT THAT APPEAL, THE APPEALS COURT. AND THAT WAS ALL FROM THE DOCKET. YES. YES. SO THAT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION DEALT WITH A CEO RELATING TO TEXAS COURTHOUSE AND THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PENAL CODE. AND IT WAS THE PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH IN DETERMINING A DECISION AS RELATED TO TEXAS COURTHOUSE. YES. BUT IT WAS THE, THIS, THE YES, YES. SO [04:40:02] IN, I, I'M, AGAIN, THIS IS A ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL APPEAL DECISION. IT'S DIFFERENT THAN OUR NORMAL CASES. WE, UH, TALK A LOT ABOUT THE APPLICATION OF PRECEDENTS THAT DON'T APPLY FROM OUR DECISIONS ON THIS BOARD. DOES THAT CONCEPT THAT WE DON'T, THAT A DECISION MADE BY THIS BOARD DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A, A, UH, UH, PRECEDENT? DOES THAT APPLY TO THIS TYPE OF A CASE? UM, I THINK YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN IN THAT YOU CAN'T TAKE A DECISION THAT APPLIES TO ONE APPEAL AND APPLY IT ONE, UH, APPEAL OF ABI AO AO DECISION AND THIS LOCK SO, AND BARREL MOVE IT OVER. BUT YOU CAN LOOK AT WHAT THE LAW SAYS AND RULES FACT AND LAW ARE THE THREE THINGS I'M ZEROING IN ON. WHAT IT'S OUR RULES. WE HAVEN'T EVEN TALKED ABOUT THAT YET. YET. WHAT ARE THE FACTS? WE'RE GAINING THAT AND THE LAW AND WE DON'T SET THE LAW. THE DISTRICT COURT SET THE LAW AND WAS OVERRULED. SO THE APPEALS COURT SET THE LAW AND CONFIRMED THE PROCESS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, BECAUSE THEY AFFIRMED OUR PROCESS ADJUSTMENT. YES. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS AND A REVIEW OF THE PENAL CODE AND THE SAFE HARBOR AND CONFIRMED IT. BUT NOT THE PERMITING NO, THEY, THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. THEY, THEY ADDRESSED WHETHER THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLIED THE LAW CORRECTLY, THE PROCESS COLLECTOR. AND IN THE END IS DID WE ABUSE OUR DISCRETION IN MAKING THE DECISION AND ON THAT CASE. AND SO MY MODEL AS ONE MEMBER IS USE WHAT THE LAW SAYS IS THE PROPER PROCESS AND WHAT THE LAW IS. NOW, IF THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT TOOK THE CASE, WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO HOLD OVER THIS SORT OF DEAL, BUT THEY DIDN'T, THEY DECLINED. WHICH AS BOTH SIDES HAVE HAVE CONFIRMED, THAT MAKES THE APPEALS COURT DECISION AND THE RATIONALE LAW IN TEXAS. AND I ASKED THE, A, THE, UH, CITY ATTORNEY, WHETHER THERE ARE ANY OTHER APPEALS COURT DECISIONS. I THINK I ASKED YOU MAYBE I ASKED YOU, MR. MANN, I ASKED YOU MS. MANN, AND THERE ARE NONE WHICH MAKES, THIS IS THE LAW IN TEXAS RIGHT NOW. SO THAT BEING THE CASE, AND I'M NOT A LAWYER, DOES THAT MEAN WE HAVE DISCRETION TO MAKE A DECISION OR WE DON'T HAVE DISCRETION TO MAKE A DECISION? I THINK WE DO. BUT WHAT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IS THE PROCESS WE WENT THROUGH. 'CAUSE THEY SAID, THEY WENT THROUGH LOOKING AT HOW WE IDENTIFIED WHAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DID, HOW WE WENT ABOUT EXAMINING THE PENAL CODE AND THE SAFE HARBOR ISSUE. AND THE FACT WE WENT, WELL, WE DON'T KNOW. WE'RE NOT ATTORNEYS AND EVEN QUOTES, WE DON'T KNOW THE LEGAL, WE LOOK TO THE COURTS. AND AT THE TIME THIS WAS DECIDED THERE WAS NO LEGAL PRECEDENT ANYWHERE IN TEXAS. SO THE LAW COLUMN IN MY MATRIX WAS EMPTY. THERE IS NOW THE APPEALS COURT. THE APPEALS COURT IS BINDING. WELL, IT IT'S BINDING. WHAT, WHAT EXACTLY IS IT SAYING? WELL, IT'S SAYING THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS AND JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED AND IT OVERRULED WHAT THE DISTRICT COURT SAID WE DID WRONG. THE DISTRICT COURT SAID WE ISSU, WE AUTHORIZED AN ILLEGAL USE. THE, THE APPEALS COURT SAID, NO, THAT'S INCORRECT. THE APPEALS COURT SAID OUR PROCESS WAS INCORRECT. NO, THE THE DISTRICT COURT SAID OUR PROCESS WAS INCORRECT. THE APPEAL COURT SAID NO, YOUR PROCESS WAS CORRECT. CORRECT. SO IF I COULD RESPOND TO THAT, WHAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTUALLY SAID WAS THAT THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD GIVE DEFERENCE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION. SO WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT UPHOLDS A BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DENIAL OF A CO THAT'S ENTITLED TO LEGAL DEFERENCE. UNDER THIS OPINION, IF YOU HAVE A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION THAT OVERTURNS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL REVOCATION OF A CO, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S ENTITLED TO DEFERENCE. THAT'S ALL THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID. SO UNFORTUNATELY, THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THAT IS THAT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS MADE DIFFERENT DECISIONS WITH RESPECT TO DIFFERENT APPLICANTS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE YOU. AND THE RISK OF INCONSISTENCY IS HIGH BASED ON THIS AS THIS OPINION, BUT PROBABLY, PROBABLY NOT AS MUCH ANYMORE BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE CASE LAW, BUT THE CASE WE HAVE A DIS DISTRICT COURT THAT RULED AND THEN WAS OVERRULED. WE HAVE AN APPEALS COURT THAT RULED AND THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT OVERTURN WELL. SO, SO AGAIN, BACK TO MY QUESTION. I ASKED BOTH OF YOU, WHAT'S THE NET EFFECT WHEN THE APPEAL, THE, THE SUPREME COURT [04:45:01] DOES NOT TAKE A CASE UNDER REVIEW THE PREVIOUS COURT RULING STANDS. YES. AND THE PREVIOUS COURT RULING SAYS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION IS ENTITLED TO DIFFERENCE. CORRECT. AND SO WHAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECIDES IS LIKELY GOING TO BE THE DECISION. SO FOR THAT SPECIFIC APPLICANT. SO MS. RODRIGUEZ? YES. IN YOUR BRIEFING THAT YOU SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD AUGUST LAST YEAR ON PAGE 360 2, YOU MADE A COMMENT THAT I'M GONNA READ BACK TO YOU. OKAY. GOING BACK TO EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS ENTITLED TO DEFERENCE. AND THIS IS IN SECTION F ON PAGE 360 2 OF THIS DOCKET. IT SAYS A BOARD DECISION TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF A COMMERCIAL POKER CLUB DESPITE CLEAR STATUTORY PROHIBIT PROHIBITIONS IN THE PENAL CODE, WOULD EXCEED THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY AND RISK EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL PANEL MEMBERS WHO VOTE FOR SUCH AN ACTION. THAT'S CORRECT. I'M I, I AM APPALLED THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN WRITING IS THREATENING A BOARD MEMBER, FIVE BOARD MEMBERS. WELL, WE ARE SPEECHLESS ABOUT THAT. AND JUST TWO MINUTES AGO YOU SAID THE APPEALS COURT DECISION EMPOWERS DEFERENCE TO THE BOARD, YET IN YOUR BRIEF IT SAYS WOULD EXCEED THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY AND RISK EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL PANEL MEMBERS WHO VOTE FOR SUCH AN ACTION. WERE THOSE NOT YOUR WORDS? YES. AND THE REASON THAT I MADE THAT STATEMENT IS BECAUSE THERE IS A LEGAL CAUSE OF ACTION THAT WE DEFEND AGAINST ALL THE TIME IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT IS CALLED ULTRA VIRUS. IT IS A CAUSE OF ACTION THAT IS MADE AGAINST INDIVIDUAL CITY EMPLOYEES, BOARD MEMBERS OR WHOEVER. AND IT ALLEGES THAT THEY ACTED OUTSIDE THEIR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS. AND, AND OUR LE I'M I'M SORRY, I'M NOT TRYING TO THREATEN YOU. I'M STATING THAT THERE ARE WHAT THERE ARE. WHAT ELSE DOES THIS MEAN IF IT'S NOT A THREAT, IF, IF THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE CITY THAT BELIEVE THAT POKER IS AN ILLEGAL USE, THEY CAN BRING A CLAIM FOR TRYING TO HOLD THE CITY, THE CITY RESPONSIBLE FOR, FOR THAT VIOLATION. MS. RODRIGUEZ, ANYONE CAN SUE ANYONE FOR ANYTHING? THAT'S CORRECT. IF YOU REMEMBER AT THE LAST HEARING, I HAD THE BOARD ATTORNEY ON THE RECORD COMMUNICATE THE PROTECTION THAT BOARD MEMBERS ARE GIVEN UNDER THE CITY CODE. I HAD TO READ THAT AND IT WAS FOR A REASON. NOW WE POSTPONED THE MEETING, BUT WE WERE GONNA DIVE INTO YOUR PAGE 360 2 SECTION F THAT IF, IF WE MAKE A DECISION, IT WOULD EXCEED THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY AND RISK EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL PANEL MEMBERS WHO VOTE FOR SUCH AN ACTION IN THEIR INDIVI IN, EXCUSE ME, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES. NOT IT SAID INDIVIDUAL. INDIVIDUAL. YOU AS PEOPLE. YES. IN YOUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY. NO, YOU DIDN'T SAY OFFICIAL CAPACITY. YOU SAID INDIVIDUAL. I DIDN'T SAY INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. I SAID INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS. INDIVIDUAL PANEL MEMBERS. RIGHT. SO WHAT I'M COMMUNICATING TO YOU IS JUST A MINUTE AGO NOW IT'S FIVE MINUTES AGO, YOU SAID THE DEFERENCE FROM THE APPEALS COURT TO THE DECISION OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. AND THEN YOU LOOK AT ON PAGE 360 2, SECTION F YOU SAY THE OPPOSITE, WHICH IS IT? AT THE TIME THAT WE SUBMITTED OUR BRIEF, WE FULLY EXPECTED AND HOPED THAT THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT WOULD TAKE UP THIS CASE AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE. I'LL LET OTHER BOARD MEMBERS SPEAK TO HOW THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN WRITING IMPLY THAT WE'RE AT RISK FOR INDIVIDUAL LITIGATION. AND I AM, I'M EMBARRASSED. I I I AND IT, IT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY. I'LL LET MY OTHER PANEL MEMBERS THAT ARE VOLUNTEERS SAY, I'LL JUST POINT OUT THAT IN THE EXISTING, UH, CASES THAT WE HAVE, UM, OFFICIALS OF THE CITY ARE NAMED SPECIFICALLY IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL, BUT NOT INDIVIDUAL, NOT INDIVIDUALLY. I WAS YES. IN THEIR, IN MY PREVIOUS OFFICIAL CAPACITY. BUT IN THE OFFICIAL CAPACITY, YOUR COMMENT REPRESENTING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL SAID INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS. THAT IS SO I, I WON'T SAY ANYTHING MORE ABOUT THAT. UM, ANYONE ELSE WANNA SPEAK TO THAT? MS. DAVIS? I, I MEAN, JUST MY OPINION IS ANYBODY WHO WOULD READ THAT WOULD THINK THAT'S A THREAT AND THAT'S EXTREMELY INAPPROPRIATE, VERY THREATENING. AND I MEAN JUST A TERRIBLE FORM OF INTIMIDATION. AND EARLIER YOU MENTIONED, I MEAN WHEN YOU'RE WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION, YOU WERE [04:50:01] ASKING WHETHER OR NOT, UM, IF THE ORGAN OR IF, UH, CHAMPIONS, UM, CONTENDERS, CONTENDERS THANK YOU WOULD BE LIABLE, UM, IF IF THE PEOPLE WHO, WHO FREQUENTED THAT ESTABLISHMENT, IF THEY COULD BE SUED. SO THERE'S ANOTHER THREAT. I MEAN YOU'RE INTIMATING THAT IF THIS GETS PASSED, THAT PEOPLE WHO FREQUENT THIS ESTABLISHMENT MIGHT GET SUED. SO ALL OF THIS IS INTIMIDATION. I MEAN, YOU'RE TRYING TO MANIPULATE US TO VOTE A CERTAIN WAY. I I'M NOT TRYING TO MANIPULATE ANYONE. I'M TRYING TO POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE THOSE RISKS OUT THERE. THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO SAY. THAT COLLIN COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAS INDICATED THEIR VIEW THAT, THAT THIS IS ILLEGAL AND WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT DECISIONS THEY MAY OR MAY NOT MAKE. ANY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WE'LL, WE'LL KEEP GOING. ALRIGHT, CONTINUE WITH YOUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. PLEASE IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. WE'VE ALREADY COVERED THIS IN GREAT DETAIL SO I WON'T SPEND TIME ON IT OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT IN OUR VIEW THE SAFE HARBOR DEFENSE IN THE PENAL CODE DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE CLEARLY A RESTAURANT CANNOT BE A PRIVATE PLACE. AND IN OUR DEFINITION UNDER THE CODE, A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE IS OPEN TO MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC. IN OUR VIEW, OUR LEGAL ARGUMENT IS THAT CANNOT BE A PRIVATE PLACE EITHER. AND AS I JUST MENTIONED, THE COLLIN COUNTY DA'S OFFICE HAS INDICATED THAT THESE MODELS DO VIOLATE THE PENAL CODE. IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT CHAMPION'S FIRST ATTEMPT. UM, THE SAME APPLICANT, SAME LOCATION WAS BEFORE YOU IN 2021. YOU UPHELD DENIAL OF THEIR CO. THAT LAWSUIT IS STILL PENDING. THERE ARE FIVE POKER ROOM LAWSUITS PENDING RIGHT NOW, UH, WAITING FOR RESOLUTION, FINAL RESOLUTION OF THE TEXAS CARDHOUSE MATTER. AND WE'VE ALREADY COVERED, UH, OUR OFFICE'S LEGAL INTERPRETATION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION. SO I'M NOT GONNA SPEND ANY MORE TIME ON THAT. UM, IN SUMMARY, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD AFFIRM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S REVOCATION OF THE CO ADMINISTRATIVE MISTAKES CANNOT CREATE LEGAL RIGHTS TO OPERATE ILLEGAL BUSINESSES. AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL, UM, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR MEGAN WEIMER. OH, WELL HOLD ON FIRST WITH THE BOARD'S INDULGENCE COUNCIL MEMBER KAREN MENDELSON IS HERE, THE COUNCIL MEMBER FOR DISTRICT 12. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL HER AS A WITNESS BRIEFLY AND I HAVEN'T BEEN SWORN IN, BUT I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. I PER OUR RULES, MS. MENDELSON, WE NEED YOU TO YES, MS. BOARD SECRETARY, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? ABSOLUTELY. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. KARA MENDELSON. SO, UM, I WAS OFFERED JUST AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A STATEMENT. IS THAT OKAY? SURE. OR IS IT NEED TO BE QUESTIONS? OUR RULES SAY, UH, CALL WITNESS SO SHE CAN GIVE YOU A LEADING QUESTION AND THEN YOU CAN RUN WITH IT. NOW UNDER OUR RULES, THE APPLICANT HAS THE RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE SO THAT THAT'S JUST UNDER OUR RULES. AND THEN YOUR ATTORNEY IS ALLOWED TO REDIRECT AFTERWARDS. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSOHN, YOU ARE THE COUNCIL MEMBER FOR DISTRICT 12, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND I WAS SO SURPRISED TO HEAR MY NAME AND WORDS THAT I WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE SAID, WHICH I DID NOT. I HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY TO NOT BE IN THE CHAMBERS. AS YOU'VE HEARD THIS, YOU MAY NOTICE I HAVE NOT BEEN IN THE CHAMBERS WHILE YOU'VE BEEN IN SESSION UNTIL I WAS SO OUTRAGED BY THE ABSOLUTE LIES TOLD ABOUT WHAT I HAVE SAID THAT I CAME DOWN AND ASKED COULD I MAKE A STATEMENT. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON. YOU HEARD, UM, THE, UH, APPLICANT'S WITNESS TESTIFY THAT IN A MEETING IN JUNE OF 2021, YOU SAID YOU'RE NOT AGAINST POKER, BUT YOU ARE JUST AGAINST CRIME. IS THAT A MISCHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT YOU ACTUALLY STATED AT THAT MEETING? IT IS BOTH A MISCHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT I SAID AT THE MEETING AS WELL AS WHAT I BELIEVE AND WHAT I ALSO SAID ON A VIRTUAL MEETING, UH, THAT HAPPENED PRIOR TO THE COMMUNITY MEETING, I'M ASSUMING YOU MEAN THE MEETING THAT HAPPENED AT [04:55:01] THE CHURCH, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, SO I AM NOT OPPOSED TO POKER. I GREW UP PLAYING POKER. MY HUSBAND PLAYS IN A MONTHLY POKER GAME AT A PERSON'S HOUSE. IT ROTATES. IT'S A LOT OF FUN. IT'S A GOOD WAY TO LEARN MATH IF YOU'RE A KID. NOTHING WRONG WITH I HOPE. I HOPE THERE'S NO RAKE IN. THERE'S NO RAKE. I WAS, I I KNEW THAT I, I GUESS THERE'S M AND MS. SODA AND BEER. THAT'S WHAT THERE IS. IT'S A FRIENDLY GAME. IT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT IS A PRIVATE PLACE AND THAT IS THE EXCEPTION THAT'S ALLOWED IN THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. A PRIVATE PLACE. AND THAT'S WHAT THEY SOUGHT TO PRESERVE. BUT IT'S NOT A COMMERCIAL ENTITY. AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT UH, AN ECONOMIC BENEFIT, WHICH IS ALSO SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED IN THE CONSTITUTION, THESE FOLKS ARE MAKING SO MUCH MONEY THAT THAT'S EXACTLY WHY THERE'S SO MANY CARDHOUSE AND CITIES DON'T WANNA SHUT 'EM DOWN BECAUSE THEY WANT THE SALES TAX AND THERE'S A LOT OF MONEY COMING IN. I BELIEVE TEXAS CARDHOUSE TESTIFIED THEY WERE MAKING A MILLION DOLLARS A MONTH. DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT? I I'M NOT GONNA VERIFY THEIR NUMBERS. I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT I HEARD. I COULD BE WRONG. IT'S A LOT OF MONEY AT STAKE. BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS TELL YOU VERY SPECIFICALLY WHAT I HEARD THAT WAS WRONG. BECAUSE THE VERY FIRST TIME I MET WITH THE GROUP, WHICH WAS CHAMPIONS AT THAT TIME, I TOLD THEM THIS IS GONNA BE A BAD MEETING FOR YOU. AND WE WERE ON, WE WERE ON TEAMS. I SAID, BECAUSE I'M A HUNDRED PERCENT OPPOSED TO THIS AND I'M GONNA DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. BUT IF IT DOES, I WANNA MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE A CRIME ISSUE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS PROTECTED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. SO WITH THAT WE CAN HAVE A MEETING BUT JUST KNOW I'M OPPOSED AND I'LL DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO STOP IT. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF OUR MEETING. SO THAT'S A FACT. UM, THE SECOND THING I'LL SAY IS THAT I DID PREVIOUSLY VOTE TO ALLOW A POKER ROOM. I WAS A BRAND NEW COUNCIL MEMBER. COUNCIL MEMBER KLEIMAN WAS BRINGING, IT WAS FOR TEXAS CARDHOUSE ON MONTFORT BY THE WAY. THAT NEVER EVEN HAPPENED. AND I ASKED THE THEN CITY ATTORNEY, CHRIS CASO, IS THIS LEGAL? I DON'T THINK YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE GAMBLING. AND HE SAID, WELL WE CHECKED IT OUT. THERE'S A WHOLE SCHEME INVOLVED. IT'S LEGAL. AND UNDER THAT ADVICE, WHICH I RELIED UPON, I VOTED FINE. I DID ALSO ASK WHAT DO THE PEOPLE AROUND THERE THINK? HE SAID THERE WAS ONE APARTMENT COMPLEX AND THEY WERE FOR IT. IT WOULD ALSO ONLY LAST FOR TWO YEARS I BELIEVE. AND THAT AREA WAS BEING DEMOLISHED FOR THE NEW INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT. SO WITH THAT, THAT WAS WITHIN THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONCEPT, CORRECT? CORRECT. CAME FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL UNDER AN SUP. CORRECT. NOTICE THERE'S NO SUP BEING TALKED ABOUT. WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A POKER USE BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL. SO WHY WOULD WE HAVE A POKER USE WHEN IT'S AN ILLEGAL OPERATION AND YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS LEGAL WE WOULD HAVE THAT IN OUR CODE AND WE WOULD HAVE AN SUP JUST LIKE WE DO FOR ALL SORTS OF OTHER THINGS THAT WILL IMPACT NEIGHBORHOODS. THE LIKELIHOOD OF HAVING A POKER CLUB THAT IS ADJACENT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE VERY SMALL. UNLIKE TEXAS CARDHOUSE ON HARRY HINES WHERE IT'S PROBABLY A GOOD USE. JUST LIKE WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE ON HARRY HINES AND NOWHERE ELSE? ALL OUR STRIP CLUBS SAME. SO THE NEXT ITEM I'D LIKE TO SAY IS THAT WHEN I FOUND OUT THEY WERE COMING TO DISTRICT 12, THE FIRST THING I DID IS SAY, WELL THIS IS IN THE COLLIN COUNTY PART OF MY DISTRICT. LET ME CALL THE DA FOR COLLIN COUNTY. AND I SAY, HEY GREG WILLIS, TELL ME ABOUT POKER ROOMS. 'CAUSE NOW IT LOOKS LIKE NOT JUST ONE BUT THREE ARE INTERESTED IN COMING TO COLLIN COUNTY. AND I GOT AN EDUCATION AND THE ONLY POLITICAL FAVOR I ASKED FOR WAS I ASKED THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, PLEASE LEARN MORE. PLEASE COME TALK TO THE DA AND UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S SAYING FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. 'CAUSE I'M NOT A LAWYER. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT WERE SAID THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE MARCHED DOWN TO TALK ABOUT OVER AND OVER. THERE'S THIS LITTLE SLUR OF POLITICAL INFLUENCE. LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING. WHEN R BI COMES UP, LET HIM TELL YOU IF I EVER CALLED HIM ABOUT THIS CASE. 'CAUSE THE ANSWER IS NO. I NEVER DID. I DIDN'T CALL YOU GUYS ABOUT THIS CASE. I HAVE NOT BEEN INVOLVED. NOW HAVE I TALKED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY? ABSOLUTELY. BUT I HAVE NOT DONE THAT. AND THAT'S JUST A FACT. THE NEXT [05:00:01] THING I'LL SAY IS THAT THE NEWSLETTER THAT UM, A COUPLE OF PEOPLE HAVE PUT UP THERE WAS ACTUALLY APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY BEFORE I PUBLISHED IT. KNOWING THE LEGAL ISSUES, I ASKED THEM TO REVIEW IT BEFORE I PUT IT OUT. THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH WHAT I SAID. I THANKED OUR HOUSE MEMBER OF THAT AREA AT THE TIME, MATT SHAHEEN, I THANKED THE DA FOR COLLIN COUNTY. I THANKED THE CITY ATTORNEY. THAT'S COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE. MATT SHAHEEN, MATT SHAHEEN WAS AT THE VERY MEETING THAT THERE, UM, SAYING I SAID SOMETHING THAT I DID NOT. SO THERE ARE ALSO A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE THAT WERE AT THAT SAME MEETING THAT KNOW I DID NOT SAY THAT. THE NEXT THING I WANNA SAY IS THERE WAS A WHOLE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE VARIOUS LAWSUITS. AND AGAIN, NOT A LAWYER, I'M NOT EVEN SURE I FULLY UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKS, BUT LET ME SAY IT TO YOU IN THE MOST BASIC WAY POSSIBLE. FIRST LAWSUIT JUDGE MOYE SAYS THIS IS, THIS IS NOT GONNA GO FOR THE CARD ROOMS, IT'S GONNA GO FOR THE CITY BECAUSE POKER IS ILLEGAL. THAT'S THE CORE OF THE ISSUE. THEY APPEAL. THE APPEAL COURT DOES NOT RULE ON POKER IS ILLEGAL. THEY RULE ON YOU AND THE, AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND WHO GETS TO MAKE THIS DECISION. AND SO WHEN IT WENT TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, THEIR INTEREST MIGHT ACTUALLY BE, IF THE RIGHT CASE WENT IS A POKER ROOM LEGAL. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS BEFORE THEM. IT WAS DO YOU AFFIRM THE NATURE OF WHO DECIDES THE BI OR YOU? SO TO THEN TAKE THAT WHICH YOU KNOW, MASTERS OF OF MARKETING OVER HERE AND TWIST IT TO BE, OH THEREFORE POKER IS LEGAL. THAT IS NOT TRUE. THE ENTIRE CASE ABOUT POKER BEING LEGAL REALLY BOILS DOWN TO A COUPLE THINGS. ONE IS THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT AND THERE IS AN ECONOMIC BENEFIT. EVEN IF THERE ISN'T A RAKE, THEY'RE CHARGING A FEE TO JOIN. THEY'RE CHARGING A SEAT CHARGE SOMETIMES LOTS OF DIFFERENT MODELS, FOOD AND DRINK, THEY'RE MAKING A LOT OF MONEY. THAT'S AN ECONOMIC BENEFIT. IT DOESN'T SAY YOU MAKE IT BECAUSE OF THE HAND IT SAYS ECONOMIC BENEFIT. THAT'S VERY, VERY DIFFERENT. UM, THE NEXT THING I WANNA SAY IS UM, THIS IS A GAMBLING COMPANY. THAT'S ALL THEY DO. AND THEY TOOK A GAMBLE BY GOING IN THERE. WHY DID THEY DO IT? WELL IT'S A VERY UNIQUE BUILDING. IT'S KIND OF GREAT FOR THIS PURPOSE AND IT'S RIGHT OFF THE TOLLWAY AND RIGHT OFF GEORGE BUSH. SO ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER ARE GONNA COME THERE IF IT GETS THIS PERMIT. MAYBE SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT'S GREAT, WE DO NOT. UM, THE TEXAS CARD HOUSE CASE KEEPS COMING UP AND I'LL JUST SAY THIS, WHEN Y'ALL MADE THAT DETERMINATION, TEXAS CARDHOUSE HAD BEEN OPEN FOR A LONG TIME TO THEN REVOKE IT A LONG TIME. THIS HAS NOT ACTUALLY BEEN OPEN. WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING IS SENDING EMAILS TO ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE IN THE DISTRICT INCLUDING ME, SAYING COME HAVE DINNER, JUST COME CHECK IT OUT. AND NOW THEY HAVE PRESENTED TO YOU AS IF THEY HAVE BEEN THIS LONGSTANDING COMMUNITY PILLAR. THIS IS NOT TRUE. THEY DON'T HAVE A LIQUOR LICENSE. I AM FIGHTING IT AS IS THE STATE SENATOR. THEY MAY END UP NOT HAVING A LIQUOR LICENSE. WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT. CHAMPIONS DID NOT OPEN BEFORE THE CITY RECOGNIZED THE ERROR. UM, THERE IS NOTHING AGAIN IN OUR CODE THAT REQUIRES EVEN AN SUP. THERE IS NO PROTECTION FOR ANY NEIGHBORHOOD AND IF YOU APPROVE THIS, YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S NEXT. 'CAUSE THEY'RE GOING EVERYWHERE. AND IF YOU'RE IN THE DALLAS COUNTY PART, GOOD LUCK BECAUSE THAT DA DOESN'T CARE. BUT COLLIN COUNTY AND DENTON COUNTY, THEY CARE A LOT AND THAT'S WHERE THEY WANNA COME BECAUSE OF THE HIGHWAY SYSTEM. THE LAST THING I'M SAY IS THEY BROUGHT UP UM, THE CRESCENT CLUB. YOU KNOW MUCH IT COSTS TO JOIN THE CRESCENT CLUB. WELL OVER $1,800. THE MONTHLY CHARGE IS ABOUT $165 FOR DINING AND FITNESS. VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE NO CHARGE RIGHT NOW. UH, OR THE WAIVED FEE RIGHT NOW. SO DID THE APPLICATION FOR THE PERMIT ACTUALLY SAY POKER? I DON'T KNOW WHEN I INQUIRED, I'VE NEVER SEEN THE APPLICATION THAT I'M AWARE OF. WHAT I DO KNOW IS IT HAD THINGS LIKE DARTS AND KARAOKE NIGHT. THEY TRIED TO MAKE IT A VERY MINIMAL USE COMPARED TO WITH WITH EXTENSIVE DINING. AND WE HIRED THE BIG CHEF FROM THREE FORKS. BUT REALLY THE ENTIRE UPSTAIRS IS GONNA BE POKER ROOMS. THAT'S NOT A MINIMAL USE. THAT'S GONNA BE WHERE THE REAL MONEY IS. OR LET'S SAY THE BREAD AND BUTTER NOT DOWNSTAIRS. [05:05:02] THEY DID OPERATE POKER ALREADY ILLEGALLY FOR THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB. OF COURSE IT WAS CHARITABLE, WHICH IS ANOTHER EXCEPTION UNDER THE STATE. UM, I THINK IT'S VERY, VERY INTERESTING THAT THEY HAVE HIRED A CONSULTANT WHO USED TO WORK FOR THE CITY SUPERVISING THE VERY PEOPLE WHO MESSED UP. AND YOUR FRUSTRATION ABOUT HOW COULD THE CITY MESS UP SO MANY TIMES IN A ROW. ALL I CAN SAY IS IF YOU RUN FOR OFFICE AND YOU'RE SITTING THERE WITH YOUR ACTUAL NAMEPLATE, YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT A SHOCKING THING. SO THAT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE. BUT YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT I HIGHLY DOUBT A PLUMBING INSPECTOR AND THIS IS JUST COMMON SENSE IS ACTUALLY LOOKING AT A LAND USE, A PLUMBING INSPECTOR IS GOING THERE TO LOOK AT PLUMBING. THE VERY ARGUMENT THAT WAS MADE THAT AN INSIDE AMUSEMENT CANNOT BE A PRIVATE PLACE IS ACTUALLY THE CORE OF THIS ISSUE FOR YOU. YOU'RE NOT DECIDING IF POKER'S LEGAL RIGHT ONE DAY THIS WILL BE DECIDED SOMEWHERE. BUT IT IS A QUESTION OF HOW CAN THEY HAVE AN INSIDE AMUSEMENT IF IT'S A PRIVATE PLACE AND IF IT'S NOT A PRIVATE PLACE, THEN HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE LEGAL? 'CAUSE IT'S NOT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. SO THEY'RE IN A CATCH 22 AND I THINK THEY'RE SPINNING YOU UP TO CONFUSE YOU ABOUT WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING. THIS IS NOT AN OKAY ITEM. THE NEXT THING I'M GONNA SAY IS THAT UM, THE MU ONE IS AN MU TWO FOR TEXAS CARDHOUSE IS MY UNDERSTANDING. SO PLEASE CHECK THAT. WHICH MEANS IT HAS A HIGHER DENSITY USE OVER THERE THAN IT DOES EVEN ON THE TOLLWAY. THE BOTTOM LINE IS POKER IS ILLEGAL AND THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE A CO TO RUN A POKER CLUB. THAT IS JUST A FACT. THE ERROR WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND THE IRONY OF THEIR CONSULTANT BEING LED WHILE YOU HAVE WATCHED THEM SAY FACTUALLY INCORRECT INFORMATION, YOU'VE SEEN IT, YOU'VE SEEN THEM MISCHARACTERIZE THINGS ON PURPOSE TO YOU. CAN YOU IMAGINE ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU DON'T KNOW THAT THEY MISCHARACTERIZED? BECAUSE I'M TELLING YOU I DO INCLUDING MY STATEMENTS, NO COURT HAS EVER SAID THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT POKER IS LEGAL. BUT WE DO HAVE A COURT THAT SAID IT'S ILLEGAL. I DIDN'T SEE WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY SUBMITTED TO YOU BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT POLITICAL INFLUENCE THING, IT'S NOT REAL. HAVE I ENGAGED WITH MY COMMUNITY? ABSOLUTELY. AND NOT JUST ON THIS ISSUE BUT LOTS OF ISSUES AND AM I PROUD OF THEM? ABSOLUTELY. SO AGAIN, THE 11 PAGE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT SAY POKER ROOMS ARE LEGAL WHEN YOU GO THROUGH IT. I READ IT. I'M NOT A LAWYER. IT DOESN'T SAY POKER ROOMS ARE LEGAL. IT SAYS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YOU AND THE BI IS NOT EXACTLY AS MOYE SAID. AND THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE RULING ON. SO THAT'S WHAT I WANNA SAY AND THAT'S MY STATEMENT. I'M VERY HAPPY TO ANSWER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM YOU OR THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, IF THE UM, BUILDING OFFICIAL CALLS THE WITNESS, UM, THE APPLICANT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINEE. YES, MR. MANN? THANK YOU. AND I'LL JUST SAY I SEE YOU ALMOST EVERY OTHER WEEK FOR ZONING CASES. THIS IS YOUR BREAD AND BUTTER? YES. YES MA'AM. MR. MANN. SO THANK YOU MS. MENDELSON. ARE, ARE YOU AWARE THAT MS. RODRIGUEZ DOES NOT REPRESENT YOU FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING AND THAT SHE IS REPRESENTING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL? IT'S RARE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ACTUALLY DOES REPRESENT ME. THEY REPRESENT THE CITY MOST OF THE TIME. SO YES. SO YES. OKAY. AND HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO HER DURING THIS PROCEEDING ABOUT THIS CASE? I WALKED IN AS YOU PROBABLY NOTED AND I SAID THEY ARE LYING ABOUT WHAT I SAID AND IS IT OKAY FOR ME TO BE IN THE ROOM BECAUSE I HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ADVISED NOT TO BE AND CAN I MAKE A STATEMENT? AND SHE SAID, CAN I CALL YOU AS A WITNESS? AND I SAID YES. SO YES, YOU HAVE COMMUNICATED WITH HER ABOUT THIS CASE. THIS IS WHAT I HAVE. ARE YOU SAYING TODAY OR EVER TODAY THAT I SAW AND IF, IF BEFORE THIS YES PLEASE TELL US. THAT'S THE COMMUNICATION WE'VE HAD TODAY. BUT THE COMMUNICATION I'VE HAD WITH HER ABOUT THE CASE OTHERWISE I THINK IS ACTUALLY COVERED UNDER CITY COUNCIL [05:10:01] WHERE AS A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL I CAN SEEK HER LEGAL OPINION AND ADVICE WITHOUT SHARING THAT WITH YOU. OKAY. AND HAVE YOU SPOKEN WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TODAY ABOUT THIS CASE? I HAVE. YOU KNOW WHAT? I WENT OVER TO HIM AND I SAID, CAN YOU JUST REMIND ME, I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER SPOKEN TO YOU ABOUT THIS CASE. CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT'S TRUE? AND HE SAID, NO, WE'VE NEVER SPOKEN ABOUT IT. OKAY. SO YOU DID SPEAK TO HIM TODAY ABOUT THIS CASE? THAT IS THE CONTENT OF OUR CONVERSATION. OKAY. UM, MR. TRUMBO TESTIFIED THAT ON THE JUNE 28TH TOWN HALL MEETING THAT WAS HOSTED BY THE BEN TREE NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD, HE QUOTED YOU AND YOU SAID IN THAT MEETING THEY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO IT. DID YOU SAY THAT? I DON'T THINK I WAS REFERENCING THE CHAMPIONS CLUB. I THINK IT WAS THE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE PERMIT FOR THE TEXAS CARD HOUSE. THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION. SO YOU DID SAY THEY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO IT IN THAT, NOT ABOUT THE CHAMPIONS. OKAY. BUT PREVIOUSLY YOU TESTIFIED TO THIS BODY THAT WE LIE MR. TRUMBO LIED AND YOU DID NOT SAY THAT. SO NOW ARE YOU CHANGING YOUR TESTIMONY? HE LIED THAT I SAID THAT I SUPPORT IT. THAT THE ONLY THING WAS ABOUT I SEE IT'S JUST A YES OR NO QUESTION MA'AM. YOU SAID HE LIED AND CLAIMED YOU SAID HE LIED. YES. HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO IT. HE HAS LIED. ALRIGHT, SO YOU ARE CHANGING THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU GAVE AND ADMITTING THAT YOU SAID AT THAT MEETING THEY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO IT. IT'S JUST DID YOU SAY THE WORDS THEY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO IT AT THAT MEETING? I DON'T RECALL IF I SAID THOSE EXACT WORDS. OKAY. IF SOMEONE PRESENT AT THAT MEETING IS IN POSSESSION OF A RECORDING WHERE YOU SAY IT, WOULD YOU DISPUTE THAT YOU SAID IT? I WOULD NEED TO HEAR THAT RECORDING. WOULD YOU LIKE US TO PLAY THAT RECORDING? IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO IT, GO FOR IT. ARE YOU GONNA TAKE OUT THE PART BEFORE AND AFTER THE ANSWER IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT. EVEN THOUGH YOU AND I AGREE THESE ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT SCENARIO, WHICH I AGREE WITH, BUT CAN YOU PAUSE THAT FOR ONE SECOND? OKAY. THE TOTALLY OTHER SCENARIO IS EXACTLY THE TEXAS CARD HOUSE ON MONTFORT COUNCILWOMAN. HOLD ONE SECOND PLEASE. MR. MANN, I I I WANT TO GIVE YOU WIDE LATITUDE ON CROSS-EXAMINING THE BUILDING OFFICIALS WITNESS, BUT I DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU UNLIMITED BECAUSE I I THE BOARD NEEDS TO FIGURE OUT WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS. ARE YOU TRYING TO IMPEACH THE WITNESS? IS THAT WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO? YES. . OKAY. OKAY. MS. MENDELSON, PLEASE. SHE CALLED MY WITNESS A LIAR, MR. CHAIR. OKAY. UH, ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO ASK AS PART? I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION. YOU, I'LL GIVE YOU AS MUCH TIME AS YOU WANT. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE STAY FOCUSED ON, ON WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT GOES TO OUR CORE QUESTION. YEP. DO YOU WANT US TO PLAY THE RECORDING? I'M NOT, I'M NOT ENJOYING THIS FOR THE RECORD. OH, I'M SURE YOU'RE NOT, WE WEREN'T PLANNING ON DOING THIS, BUT YOU'VE PUT IT IN THE RECORD. I CALLED MY CLIENT. I WASN'T PLANNING ON COMING DOWN HERE, BUT THERE ARE MULTIPLE THINGS OVER AND OVER THAT WERE SAID THAT WERE INCORRECT TODAY. OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE US TO PLAY THAT? THAT WERE LIES? I'M NOT EVEN GONNA SAY THEY'RE INCORRECT. THERE WERE ACTUAL LIES. OKAY. AND FRANKLY, THEY'VE ALREADY HEARD SOME OF THEM, THEY ALREADY KNOW THAT YOU HAVE MISCHARACTERIZED AND GIVEN THEM FALSE INFORMATION. MR. CHAIR, COULD WE HAVE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS TO CONVENE WITH MY CLIENT BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THIS CROSS-EXAMINATION THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AT 6 25 UH, PM ON THE 16TH OF UM, SEPTEMBER GOES INTO RECESS. YOU WANTED 10 MINUTES? IS THAT WHAT YOU WANTED? SURE. OR MORE THAN 10 TEN'S FINE. 10 MINUTES. WE'LL RE RECESS UNTIL 6:35 PM THANK YOU. THANKS. OKAY, WE'RE GONNA COME BACK TO ORDER PLEASE. OKAY, SO WE GO AHEAD AND TURN YOUR, YOUR SCREENS ON. UH, IT IS 6:36 PM ON THE 16TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2025. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UH, PANEL A IS HEREBY HEREBY BACK IN SESSION. UM, UH, WHERE WE WERE AT IS THE APPLICANT WAS CROSS EXAMINING THE WITNESS FOR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MR. MANN. OKAY, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, MS. MEN AND I WAS ABLE TO GO BACK AND LISTEN TO THE AUDIO. UH, [05:15:01] AND WE'LL, WE'LL PLAY IT. IT'S ADMITTEDLY GONNA BE DIFFICULT TO HEAR. UM, WE HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE EXCHANGE THAT I'D LIKE TO READ FIRST, THEN WE CAN PLAY IT. WE'D LIKE TO HAVE THIS IN THE RECORD, BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, YOU BELIEVE IF YOU SAID THEY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO IT, YOU WERE REFERRING TO THE SAM MOON PROPERTY AND NOT THIS PROPERTY. SO I'M GONNA SAY THIS WAS 2021, IS THAT RIGHT? YES, MA'AM. RIGHT. SO IT'S 2025. I'VE PROBABLY DONE, SO I'M UNDER OATH. I'M GONNA SAY MORE THAN 50 TOWN HALLS SINCE THEN. I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SAY FOR SURE ANYTHING I SAID IN 2021 AS A QUOTE. OKAY. WELL WE'LL PLAY IT MIGHT HAVE IT. AND IT WAS A LONG MEETING. DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THE MEETING WAS? I THINK IT WAS MINUTES. 80 MINUTES. YEAH. SO, OKAY. SO THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE FROM THE RECORDING 'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO HEAR IT. RIGHT. SO A RESIDENT OKAY. WHAT, WHAT IS, WHAT IS THIS RECORDING OF MR. MANN? THE, THE TOWN HALL MEETING THAT OCCURRED WITH THE VENTRE NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD IN JUNE OF 2021. DO YOU HAVE A RECORDING OF THE TOWN HALL MEETING? YES. YOU'RE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHO THEY ARE. YOU HAVE A RECORDING OF A TOWN HALL MEETING. OKAY. I DIDN'T HAVE IT, BUT YES. OKAY. SO CHAIR, I WOULD IMAGINE, HOLD ON A SECOND, MS. MENDELSON, RESPECTFULLY PLEASE, PLEASE. SURE. IS IS A RECORDING LIKE THIS ADMINIS, WHAT'S TEXAS? ONE PARTY OF AFFIRMATIVE FOR RECORDINGS AND ALL THAT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, WHAT THE DEAL IS. I I'VE I'VE NOT, THIS IS A FIRST HERE. I'M NOT, I I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER OF, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S ONE PARTY CAN RECORD A MEETING. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO MR. MANN, WHICH THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO DO IS TO PLAY A RECORDING FROM THAT MEETING. WELL AGAIN, WHAT I'M TRYING TO ESTABLISH IS THAT YOU STATED MR. TRUMBO LIED WHEN HE SAID YOU TOLD THE PEOPLE AT THE TOWN HALL MEETING THAT THEY CHAMPIONS HAD A LEGAL RIGHT TO THIS USE AT THE LOCATION. SO THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID. OKAY. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S, I KNOW YOU ARE RECORDING THIS ALSO. I BELIEVE YOU RECORDED THE VIRTUAL MEETING WE HAD. I WISH YOU COULD PLAY WHERE I TOLD THEM I WOULD OPPOSE THIS. UM, BUT WHAT HE SAID, AND AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE A REPLAY AND I WASN'T EXPECTING TO COME DOWN HERE. EVERYTHING I SAID OR JUST NOTES I JUST WROTE. BUT WHAT HE SAID IS THAT I SUPPORTED IT AND I KNOW I HAVE NEVER EVER SAID THAT. DO YOU HAVE A RECORDING OF ME SAYING I SUPPORT THIS? I HAVE A RECORDING OF YOU SAYING THAT THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO THIS USE AT THIS LOCATION. THAT'S WHAT I HAVE AND I'LL ALSO SAY IF I SAID IT AND IF YOU HAVE A RECORDING, I'LL BELIEVE THAT. OKAY. HOWEVER, THAT WAS ALSO BEFORE I MAY HAVE LEARNED EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO FROM THE DA IN COLLIN COUNTY AND DENTON COUNTY. UH, THERE WAS A OUTSIDE ATTORNEY THAT WE CONSULTED OUT OF AUSTIN. SO ALL I'M TRYING TO ESTABLISH IS THAT, SO, SO IF I DON'T HAVE TO PLAY THE RECORDING, SO OUR OUR OUR RULES OR PROCEDURE OR SUCH THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OFFERED A WITNESS, THE APPLICANT IS A ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE RESPECTFULLY. I REALLY NEED YOU TO ONLY ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT ARE ASKED BY THE MR. MANN. THAT'S IT. I CAN'T HAVE YOU AT TERRORIZED FURTHER 'CAUSE IT'S BEYOND WHAT OUR RULES OR PROCEDURE ARE. YOUR COUNSEL CAN REDIRECT BUT AS FAR AS THE PROCESS IS HE, HE JUST LIKE MS. RODRIGUEZ HAS THE RIGHT TO, TO CALL A WITNESS AND HAVE IT REDIRECTED. SO IF YOU WOULD PLEASE THANK YOU. ALRIGHT MR. MANN, YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE WITNESS. YEAH. AND ALL I'M TRYING TO ESTABLISH AND, AND IT'S OKAY IF THE ANSWER IS YOU WERE MISTAKEN BUT YOU CALLED MR. TRUMBO A LIAR FOR CLAIMING THAT YOU SAID THEY HAD THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO IT AT THIS LOCATION. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE NOT SURE ANYMORE. NO, YOU ARE MISCONSTRUING MY WORDS. OKAY. AND I DIDN'T CALL HIM A LIAR OVER THAT QUOTE. I CALLED HIM A LIAR OVER SAYING EARLIER THAT THE COUNCILWOMAN, 'CAUSE I WAS UP THERE WATCHING IT IN MY OFFICE, SUPPORTED THIS. OKAY. DID HE SAY THAT? HE DID AND I DID NOT AND I NEVER HAVE, 'CAUSE I'VE NEVER SUPPORTED THIS PROJECT. SO I'M ASKING YOU THE QUESTIONS. YOU'RE NOT ASKING A . I THINK WE HAVE ESTABLISHED WHEN YOU SAID HE LIED THAT YOU SAID THEY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO IT. YOU ARE AT LEAST NOT SURE IF YOU WERE CORRECT OR ARE YOU SAYING YOU NEVER [05:20:01] SAID THAT? I'M NOT SI SAYING EITHER ONE. YOU'RE OFFERING AN EITHER OR CHOICE AND NEITHER OF THOSE IS CORRECT. I HEARD YOU SAY THAT HE LIED WHEN HE SAID, YOU SAID IN A TOWN HALL MEETING THEY HAD THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO IT. DID YOU NOT SAY THAT? I BELIEVE MY WORDS WERE THAT HE LIED THAT I SUPPORTED THE PROJECT. THAT I DIDN'T SAY THAT, UM, AS A CONCEPT. OKAY. I DON'T SO I DIDN'T SAY IT THAT WAY. YEAH, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS I DON'T KNOW AN EXACT QUOTE THAT I SAID IN 2021. IF YOU HAVE A RECORDING PROBABLY I AGREE WITH THAT. I DON'T THINK YOU MADE UP A RECORDING. OKAY. THEN WE'VE ESTABLISHED FOR THE RECORD THAT IT WAS SAID BUT THE LIE THAT MEETING THE LIE WAS NOT THE QUOTE, THE LIE WAS OTHER THINGS HE SAID. OKAY. I, AGAIN, I'M, I'M GONNA GENTLY ASK THE WITNESS TO ONLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT COME FROM THE COUNSEL. JU LIKEWISE THE RULES APPLY TO WITNESSES THAT THE CITY, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL PRESENTS. SO THAT'S THE STRUCTURE OF OUR PROCESS. YEP. OKAY. MR. MANN. ALRIGHT. ARE YOU AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL INVOLVED IN ANY WAY IN THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY APPLICATIONS FOR USES THAT ARE ALLOWED BY THE EXISTING ZONING OF THE PROPERTY? OR IS THAT HANDLED AT A BUILDING OFFICIAL LEVEL? AS I MENTIONED, I HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ABOUT THE CO I DON'T GET INVOLVED IN COS SO YOU DON'T GET INVOLVED IN COS YET. YOU'RE TESTIFYING HERE THAT THIS CO WAS MISTAKENLY ISSUED AND REVOKED. HOW WOULD YOU KNOW, HOW WOULD I KNOW THAT IT WAS MISTAKENLY ISSUED AND REVOKED? BECAUSE I'VE TALKED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. OH, SO YOU HAVE TALKED OUTSIDE OF THE CONTEXT OF THIS HEARING WITH PARTICIPANTS IN THE HEARING ABOUT IT. I HAVE NOT TALKED TO PARTICIPANTS AT THIS HEARING ABOUT THE CONTENTS OR ABOUT THIS HEARING. I HAVE TALKED TO MY CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT ISSUES FACING MY DISTRICT THAT INVOLVE POKER ROOMS. HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR CHAMPIONS AT 1 7 7 7 6 DALLAS PARKWAY OTHER THAN AT THIS HEARING TODAY? YES. ARE YOU AWARE THAT THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY AND YOU CANNOT TRY TO INFLUENCE THEM OUTSIDE OF THIS HEARING INFLUENCE THE BODY? YES, AND I HAVE NOT. OKAY. AND YOU ARE OPPOSED TO CHAMPIONS LOCATING HERE. I'M OPPOSED TO ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES HAPPENING IN MY CITY. I ASKED IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO CHAMPIONS INCLUDING, I'M GONNA ASK IT AGAIN. ARE YOU OPPOSED TO CHAMPIONS INCLUDING POKER AS PART OF ITS OPERATIONS AT THIS LOCATION? ARE YOU PERSONALLY OPPOSED TO IT? YES. OKAY. AND THAT DECISION OF WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT THE CO NEVER COMES TO YOU? CORRECT. OKAY. AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, LET ME SAY IT THAT WAY. I HAVE NEVER APPROVED A CO THAT I'M AWARE OF. OKAY. I'VE NEVER NOT APPROVED A CO EITHER. OKAY. LAST QUESTION. HAVE YOU COMMUNICATED WITH ANY MEMBERS OF THIS PANEL ABOUT THIS CASE? UM, I THINK WHEN MICHAEL WAS BEING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UH, MR. KOVI, MR. KOVI, UM, I APPOINTED HIM. I TOLD HIM THAT POKER WILL PROBABLY COME BACK UP. WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THE CONTENT, THE CHAIR. UM, I'VE ACKNOWLEDGED TO HIM THAT HE'S DEALING WITH A DIFFICULT ISSUE. WE DID NOT TALK ABOUT IT. AND HE VERY, YOU KNOW, SO YES, YOU HAVE SPOKEN TO TWO MEMBERS OF THE PANEL ABOUT THIS CASE. I I WILL GIVE YOU NO, I WILL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND AND SO WILL I BECAUSE THERE'S INDIRECT IMPEACHMENT GOING ON AND THIS IS HOW THIS IS OPERATING. AND SO, UH, UNFORTUNATELY, OR UNFORTUNATELY, OR UNFORTUNATELY, YOU ARE, THE CITY'S ATTORNEY CALLED YOU AS A WITNESS AND OUR RULES ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO CROSS EXAMINE. IT WAS THE CITY'S DECISION TO CALL YOU AS A WITNESS. THAT PUTS YOU ON THE STAND. AND SO THEREFORE WE'RE NOT GONNA GO TOO LONG WITH THIS. I, BUT I CANNOT, I I CANNOT NOT ALLOW THE OTHER, THE, THE APPLICANT THE QUESTION. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY [05:25:01] QUESTION. SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION. I'M TRYING TO BE DELICATE NOW. YOU DON'T NEED TO BE. WELL YES, I, I WANT TO BE, I'M TOUGH BUT I TRY TO BE VERY FAIR. OKAY. SO, UH, WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, CONTINUE MR. MANN. BUT LET'S ALMOST WRAP IT UP. I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. OKAY. SO DID YOU FINISH YOUR ANSWER TO MR. MANN ABOUT WHETHER YOU HAD CONTACT WITH ANY MEMBER OF THIS PANEL REGARDING THIS CASE? I BELIEVE SO, YES. THAT YOU DID OR YOU DID NOT HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION WITH A PANEL MEMBER REGARDING THIS CASE? SO I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT BECAUSE THE DEFINITION OF THIS CASE ABOUT THE ISSUE OF POKER ROOMS. I HAVE HAD DISCUSSION, NO, THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION. THE, UH, SO THIS CASE, NO, I'VE HAD NO CON I'VE HAD NO CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS CASE WITH ANYBODY WHO'S ON THE PANEL. OKAY. THAT WAS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU. BECAUSE THAT IS OUR STANDARD. YES. I'VE HAD CONVERSATION WITH YOU AS OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS OVER TIME ABOUT DIFFERENT ISSUES HERE, BUT NEVER ABOUT THE SPECIFIC, NEVER ABOUT THE CASE. I WOULD NEVER PUT YOU IN THAT LINE OF FIRE OR ME. IT'S JUST NOT WORTH IT. SO THE QUESTION WAS SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE. OKAY, MR. OVITZ, WOULD YOU PLEASE, I'LL GIVE YOU THE FLOOR FOR MOMENT. I'LL DEFINITIVELY STATE FOR THE RECORD AND IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO BE UNDER OATH, CONSIDER ME TO BE UNDER OATH. I HAVE NEVER SPOKEN TO COUNCILWOMAN MENDELSSOHN ABOUT, I DON'T IF WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT GAMBLING IN GENERAL, I DON'T REMEMBER IT. I HAVE NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION WITH YOU ABOUT ANYTHING THAT WAS GOING TO COME UP BEFORE THIS BOARD THAT MIGHT COME UP BEFORE THIS BOARD. ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THIS BOARD OTHER THAN WHAT I SERVE AS YOUR APPOINTEE PERIOD. THAT'S THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION I'VE EVER HAD WITH HER ABOUT I KNOW MY POSITION ON THIS BOARD. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, SO I THINK IT'S IN MY JUDGMENT THAT CLEARS THAT ISSUE THAT THERE THERE'S BEEN NO UNDUE INFLUENCER OR CONTACT WITH A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD REGARDING THIS CASE, PERIOD. THE END. WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO YOU HAVE, MR. MANN? NO MORE. AND YOU, AND I'M GONNA SAY AGAIN FOR EVERYONE THAT'S LISTENING AND WATCHING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS A RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE A WITNESS THAT'S CALLED BY THE OTHER SIDE. IT'S EQUAL. EQUAL. SO THANK YOU MS. MENDELSSOHN. YOU BET. THANKS. OKAY. OH, I APOLOGIZE. OUR RULES ALSO SAY YOU'RE ALLOWED TO BE REDIRECTED BY YOUR ATTORNEY, BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ATTORNEY. SORRY. BUILDING OFFICIAL ATTORNEY. DO THEY GET ANOTHER CHANCE AFTER SHE ASKED ME A QUESTION? NO, NO. COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, UM, ELABORATE ON YOUR COMMENT ABOUT WHAT YOU FOUND TO BE INCORRECT IN THE, UH, APPLICANT'S WITNESS'S TESTIMONY? YES, AS I WAS WATCHING, UM, I HAD NO INTENTION OF BEING HERE AS ESTABLISHED. I'VE NOT TALKED TO ANYBODY ON THIS. I DON'T GET INVOLVED IN THE COS THERE'S OTHER THINGS I COULD SAY, BUT I'M GONNA BE AS SHORT AND SAY THIS AS I WAS WATCHING IT. FRANKLY, I WAS VERY, VERY ANGRY THAT THEY WOULD MISCHARACTERIZE WHAT I HAVE SAID. THEY LIED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON OUR VIRTUAL MEETING SAYING, I SUPPORTED THIS EFFORT. I HAVE NOT EVER SUPPORTED THIS EFFORT. AND THAT'S HOW I KNOW I NEVER SAID IT. THERE ARE OTHER MISCHARACTERIZATIONS THAT ARE LIES THAT THEY SAID THAT I, THAT I SPOKE, WHETHER IT'S TO RESIDENTS OR TO THEM OR TO ANYBODY ELSE. NOT TRUE. AND IT IS SHAMEFUL THAT SOMEBODY UNDER OATH WOULD DO THAT. I'M GONNA LEAVE IT AT THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, BACK TO THE BUILDING OFFICIALS CASE. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO CALL MEGAN WEER. DO YOU WANNA BRING THAT MICROPHONE? MS. WEER, WOULD YOU PLEASE TELL THE BOARD WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT YOUR ROLE IS WITH THE CITY? YES. HI IS, HELLO. HI, I'M MEGAN WEER. I AM ONE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTORS WITH THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AND I OVERSEE OUR ZONING STAFF, UM, AS WELL AS, UH, UNDERNEATH MY UMBRELLA ARE SUBDIVISION LANDSCAPING AND SIGNS. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS FOR REVIEWING AND ISSUING COS IN THE CITY? I AM. HOW ARE CO APPLICA APPLICATIONS REVIEWED? YES, SO CO APPLICATIONS ARE REVIEWED, UM, BY PLANS, EXAMINER [05:30:01] PLANS, EXAMINERS WHO SPECIALIZE IN DIFFERENT TRADES. ZONING IS ONE OF THOSE, AND BUILDING CODE, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT. UM, SO COS UH, APPLICATIONS ARE REVIEWED ON PAPER, UM, IN THE OFFICE FROM LOOKING AT PLANS AND OTHER APPLICABLE, APPLICABLE MATERIALS. AND THEN ONCE APPROVED, UM, THEY THEN MOVE INTO THE INSPECTION PHASE. I THINK WE'VE TOUCHED ON THAT A LITTLE BIT. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE CO THAT WAS ISSUED ON APRIL 9TH, 2025 FOR THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE IN THIS, UH, APPEAL? YES, I AM NOW FAMILIAR WITH THIS APP. WITH THIS APPLICATION, WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE REVIEW OF THIS CO APPLICATION? I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE REVIEW OF THE CO APPLICATION. AT SOME POINT AFTER THE CO WAS ISSUED, UH, WAS IT DETERMINED THAT THE ISSUANCE HAD BEEN MADE IN ERROR? YES, IT WAS. WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE ERROR WAS DISCOVERED? UM, OKAY, SO, UM, I I'M GONNA, WELL, SO THE, THE CO WAS ISSUED OR FINALED ON APRIL 11TH? NO, APRIL 9TH. ON APRIL 11TH. UM, IT CAME TO MY ATTENTION THAT, OR A QUESTION WAS ASKED ABOUT WOULD THERE BE POKER AT THIS ESTABLISHMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO WHEN WE GOT THE QUESTION, I LOOKED AT THE APPLICATION MATERIALS AND I SAW A LAND USE STATEMENT THAT CLEARLY, UM, REFERRED TO POKER BEING PLAYED AT TO BE PLAYED AT THIS ESTABLISHMENT. UM, AND I, MY HEART SANK . UM, I, AT THAT POINT ALSO LOOKED AT THE, UM, FLOOR PLANS THAT WERE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION, AND THERE WERE POKER TABLES SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND LABELED AS SUCH. SO, UM, AGAIN, MY, MY HEART SANK. I MEAN, THIS WAS LIKE DEJA VU. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE. UM, AND SO ACTUALLY, UM, I SAW THAT A, THE MISTAKE WAS MADE, THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED, AND I NOTIFIED, UM, OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR LEADERSHIP TEAM, AND THIS WAS ON A FRIDAY EVENING. AND I ACTUALLY DROVE UP TO THE SITE TO SEE IF IT WAS OPERATING. IT WAS NOT. UM, IT WAS, THERE WERE NO CARS AND IT WAS COMPLETELY DARK. SO AT LEAST I FELT LIKE, OKAY, GOOD. IT'S NOT OPERATING YET. WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. AND SO, UM, OVER THE WEEKEND I BEGAN DRAFTING A REVOCATION LETTER AND, UM, THE FOLLOWING WEEK ON MONDAY, DISCUSSED THAT WITH THE LEADERSHIP TEAM, INCLUDING THE, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND THE DIRECTOR. AND WE RAN THE LETTER BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WHICH IS, WHICH IS COMMON PRACTICE. UM, REVOCATION LETTERS ARE PRETTY FEW AND FAR BETWEEN, BUT WE DO RUN THOSE BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. AND THEN, UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS ON TUESDAY, THE, THE REVOCATION LETTER WAS SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE APPLICANT. OKAY. MS. HAYDEN HAS A QUESTION, MS. HAYDEN. YEAH. SO, UM, YOU MENTIONED THAT IT WAS CALLED TO YOUR ATTENTION OR THAT SOMEBODY ASKED YOU A QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING. YEAH, I GUESS WHAT MY QUESTION IS, IS HOW, HOW WAS THE ERROR DISCOVERED? BECAUSE I CAN IMAGINE YOU PROBABLY DON'T, ONCE A CO IS ISSUED, YOU DON'T GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE PLANS AND SEE THAT THERE ARE POKER TABLES, YOU KNOW, WHO BROUGHT IT UP? AND HOW WAS THAT, HOW WAS IT DISCOVERED? UM, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW IT WAS DISCOVERED. THE QUESTION WAS ASKED. UM, ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, UM, WHO IS A DEPUTY DIRECTOR IN PERMITTING, SOMEONE ASKED HIM THE QUESTION OR MENTIONED IT, I DON'T KNOW, BUT HE SAID, HEY, DID WE, DID WE ISSUE A CO FOR A, A POKER ROOM HERE? AND I, I REALLY, YOU, YOU'RE, YOU'RE GONNA TESTIFY TO MS. HAYDEN'S QUESTION THAT THAT'S HOW YOU FOUND OUT BECAUSE SOMEONE JUST CASUALLY SAID YES. HEY, WE AT THE FOGLE'S LOGIC, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT, NO WONDER THESE THINGS KEEP HAPPENING. I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT. THAT THE FOGLE'S LOGIC, I GOT THE QUESTION I INVESTIGATED AND I'M, I'M SPEECHLESS IF THAT'S THE SYSTEM THAT'S IN PLACE, UM, AND THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE, UH, UH, SPEECHLESS. OKAY. OKAY. DO, DO YOU THINK THAT I'M REVIEWING EVERY APPLICATION I YOU REPRESENT THAT YOU REPRESENT THAT DEPARTMENT. YOU WERE CALLED TO TESTIFY TODAY. YES. WE ARE TRYING TO GET AT, DID THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ERROR IN THE REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT OF THE CO. AND THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE'RE TRYING TO USE FIND RULES, FACTS, AND LAW. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO APPLY TO THIS. MS. HAYDEN, DID YOU WANNA CONTINUE? NO, THAT'S ALL I HAD. MS. DAVIS, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? [05:35:01] UH, I GUESS MY QUESTION, I JUST WANNA CONFIRM THAT THE, ON THE APPLICATION IT STATED POKER HOUSE, UM, OR IT SAID POKER, THAT POKER WOULD BE ONE? YES. ON THE, ON THE LAND USE STATEMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED, THERE WAS A REFERENCE TO POKER GAMES. YES. SO I, I GUESS I'M JUST, I I AM CONFIRMING WHAT, UM, OUR CHAIRMAN JUST SAID. I MEAN, ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE READ THROUGH. ARE YOU SAYING THEY DID NOT READ IT THOROUGHLY AND IT WAS, I MEAN, THIS HAS HAPPENED. THIS HAS HAPPENED MULTIPLE TIMES. THIS IS THE THIRD TIME. SO, AND IF I COULD SPEAK TO THAT, IF IT'S NOT OUT OF LINE, THE TWO THAT HAVE BEEN REFERENCED, LIKE YOU GUYS SEEM TO BE ALLEGING THAT THIS JUST HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. THERE WERE TWO THAT WE DISCUSSED EARLIER, AND THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSSOHN ACTUALLY REFERRED TO, WHICH HAPPENED UNDER A PREVIOUS CITY ATTORNEY. AT THAT TIME, THESE WERE NOT PREVALENT AND WE DID NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE WE HAVE NOW. SO SEVERAL YEARS AFTER THOSE TWO HAD BEEN OPERATING, WE WERE ASKED, WE HAD, WE UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE CITY CAME TO THE POSITION THAT POKER IS ILLEGAL, THAT GAMBLING IS ILLEGAL IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. WE RECEIVED SEVERAL APPLICATIONS FOR A SIMILAR USE, WHICH WE DENIED BECAUSE THEY DID NOT IN THE CITY'S OPINION, COMPLY WITH THE TEXAS PENAL CODE. THOSE WERE BROUGHT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. AND YOU CITED WITH THE BUILDING FISH IN THAT INSTANCE. DURING THAT TIME, THE QUESTION CAME UP, WHY WERE THESE TWO OPERATING? WHY ARE THESE ALLOWED? AND WE REVISITED THOSE AND REVOKED BASED ON OUR NEW UNDERSTANDING, THIS ONE APPLIED AND WAS DENIED PREVIOUSLY. THERE'S STILL LITIGATION ON IT. AND THIS WAS FOR A SECOND TIME, WHICH I AM VERY JUST AS PROBABLY DISAPPOINTED AS YOU GUYS ARE. THIS WAS ISSUED AN ERROR AND WE TOOK ACTION AS SOON AS IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION. TO FOLLOW UP ON MS. DAVIS'S QUESTION, YOU HAD TESTIFIED TO YOUR ATTORNEY THAT IT WOULD, THE LAND USE STATEMENT DID REFERENCE POKER AND THAT THE MAP, THE SCHEMATIC OF THE LAYOUT DID SAY POKER TABLES. SO IT WASN'T JUST ON THE LAND USE. RIGHT, BUT IT WAS ALSO ON THE, ON THE, THE, I GONNA HAVE TO FIND IT IN MY STACK. THE, THE FLOOR PLAN ON THE, ON THE SCHEMATIC THAT WAS GIVEN, THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE FLOOR PLAN. YES. AND THAT WAS MISSED FOR SIX MONTHS. IT WAS NOT MISSED FOR SIX MONTHS. I YOU'RE MAKING FACES OCT OCTOBER 7TH TO YEAH. AND TO APRIL 15TH. WE CAN SPEAK TO THE TIMELINE ON THAT, BUT THE ZONING PLANS EXAMINER APPROVED THE ZONING IN ERROR ON JANUARY 5TH. UH, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THE DATE. I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. BUT ALSO THERE ARE THESE DISCUSSIONS AND THINGS BEING SAID THAT, OH, ALL THESE PEOPLE MISSED IT. FIVE DIFFERENT TRADES LOOKED AT IT, PLUMBING, A PLUMBING PLANS EXAMINER. IT WAS JANUARY 6TH THAT THE ZONING HAD APPROVED IT. OKAY. ZONING APPROVED IT IN ERROR. UH, THE MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL PLUMBING BUILDING CODE, NONE OF THOSE ARE GONNA BE LOOKING AT ZONING. THEY'RE LOOKING AT THEIR RESPECTIVE TRADES. SO TO SAY THAT ALL THESE PEOPLE MISSED THIS, THAT'S NOT IN THEIR PURVIEW TO LOOK AT THE LAND USE. THERE WAS A MISTAKE MADE BY THE ZONING PLANS EXAMINER AMER, MS. DAVIS, YOU'RE CRITICIZING YOUR OWN PROCESS. HOW, HOW, SO CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT? YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE REVIEWING THIS DATA, THEY ARE INCORRECT. I MEAN, YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND, WE ARE RELYING ON YOUR TESTIMONY TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. AND WHEN THE, WHEN THERE IS A QUESTIONABLE CREDIBILITY THERE, YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE SHAKING OUR HEADS. I I ACTUALLY CAN'T BECAUSE I, I DON'T KNOW, AS A ZONING PROFESSIONAL, I WOULD NOT BE LOOKING AT PLUMBING PLANS AND MAKING A DETERMINATION ON IF PLUMBING IS CORRECT. IT'S NOT IN MY PURVIEW. JUST LIKE A ZONING LAND USE IS NOT IN THE PURVIEW OF A MECHANICAL PROFESSIONAL. I MEAN, I, I GUESS I JUST, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING TO. AND THEN MR. NERI HAS A QUESTION. YES. IS YOU'RE SPEAKING TO SILOS WITHIN THE PROCESS THAT DON'T TALK TO EACH OTHER, THAT OPERATE INDEPENDENTLY AND IGNORE WHAT'S GOING ON UNTIL SOMEHOW, AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T EXPRESSED TO US HOW THIS TRIP WIRE OCCURRED? I DID. WE GOT A QUESTION. WE LOOKED AT IT AND I, I, I MEAN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, I'M AN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR. I'M NOT LOOKING AT EVERY SINGLE ZONING SET OF PLANS THAT COMES THROUGH. I, I GUESS I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE, I WE ARE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WAS MADE AN ERROR IN REVOKING THE PERMIT. IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE HAVE TO EXAMINE WHAT HAPPENED WITH WHAT INFORMATION [05:40:01] DID THEY MAKE THE INITIAL DECISION TO THEN CHANGE THEIR MIND? YOU TESTIFIED THAT, UM, THAT PREVIOUSLY IN A PREVIOUS CASE, THE DECISION TO ISSUE A CO WAS DONE BASED ON A CITY ATTORNEY SAYING IT WAS OKAY, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN A CHANGE OF CITY ATTORNEY AND A CHANGE OF POLICY, AND IT WAS LEGAL FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, AND THEN IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE ILLEGAL. THAT'S WHAT I HEARD TESTIFIED A MINUTE AGO. I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE EVER SAID IT WAS LEGAL. I SAID THAT POSITION ON LEGALITY. WELL, SHE DID SEND, THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID IT WAS LEGAL, AND THEREFORE, THOSE AREN'T THE WORDS I USED, BUT OKAY. OKAY. WELL, THAT'S WHAT I HEARD. OKAY. THAT IT WAS LEGAL AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY ILLEGAL. OKAY. AND SO I WAS ABOUT TO JUMP IN AT THAT POINT IN TIME AND SAY, WELL, SO WHO'S DECIDING THIS LEGAL ILLEGAL, MR. NRI? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. UM, YEAH, GOING BACK TO, UM, THE FIVE OR, OR FIVE OR MORE SIX OR, UM, LEVELS THAT REVIEWED THIS, I, I'M SORRY, I DON'T RECALL THE YOUNG LADY'S NAME THAT USED TO WORK FOR THE CITY FOR ALMOST 10 YEARS. YES. BUT I DID WRITE DOWN THE DATES OKAY. THAT SHE WAS MENTIONING. AND IT APPEARS THAT THERE WERE TWO, UH, CASE COORDINATORS THAT WENT THAT, UH, REVIEWED THE FILES ON 10 24 OF 2024, AND THEN AGAIN ON JANUARY 6TH, 2025 BEFORE IT WENT INTO THE PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, HVAC INSPECTIONS AND THAT SORT OF THING. SO IT APPEARS TO ME, BASED ON HER TESTIMONY, THAT THERE WERE TWO CASE COORDINATORS THAT REVIEWED THE FILE IN ADDITION TO THE JUST THE TRADES PEOPLE. SO IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT. YEAH. THE, THE CASE COORDINATORS AREN'T ACTUALLY REVIEWING THE SPECIFIC TRADES OR LOOKING AT PLANS. THEY'RE MAKING SURE APPLICATIONS ARE COMPLETE, MAKING SURE APPLICATIONS GET ROUTED ACCORDINGLY SO THE, THE EXPERTS IN THE DIFFERENT TRADES CAN DO THE REVIEW. SO THE, THE COORDINATOR ISN'T MAKING DECISIONS ON THE, THE APPLICATION, SO, SO THEY'RE NOT REVIEWING THE APPLICATION ITSELF AND MAKING SURE THAT THERE ARE NO ILLEGAL USES. RIGHT. THEY WOULD NOT BE DOING THAT. THAT'S CORRECT. WOW. OKAY. AND THIS, THIS IS A VERY UNUSUAL, I MEAN, MOST USES, MOST APPLICATIONS WE GET IN THERE AREN'T QUESTIONS OF LEGALITY. I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S, UH, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, MS. WEIMERT, YOU SAID THAT YOU DON'T REVIEW THESE. SO DO YOU, DO YOU KNOW THAT, 'CAUSE YOU SAID YOU REGULAR DON'T REVIEW APPLICATIONS AND, AND BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE IN THE DOC, THE DOCKET HERE, IT'S VERY CLEAR. IT SAYS RIGHT UP FRONT, IT'S GONNA BE A MEMBERS ONLY HIGH-END RESTAURANT BAR AND A LEGAL POKER GAME. AND THE NEXT P PARAGRAPH, IT TALKS ABOUT POKER AGAIN AND THE GRID, THE, THE, THE, THE GR THE GRAPHIC SAYS POKER TABLES. I ONLY READ IT THE FIRST TIME AND I GRA IT JUMPED OUT AT ME. MM-HMM . SO I'M STILL UNCLEAR ABOUT HOW THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WENT ABOUT THEIR FIRST EXERCISE OF DECISION MAKING, LET ALONE THE SECOND EXERCISE OF THEIR DECISION MAKING. AND, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO COMPARE. YES. AND, AND YOU, I KNOW YOU ARE USING THE, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL BROADLY. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, WHO IS THE CURRENT BUILDING OFFICIAL'S NAME IS ON THE APPLICATION OR NOT ON THE APPLICATION? I'M SORRY, ON THE CO IT'S A AUTOMATIC PRINT. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DOES NOT LOOK AT EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION, NOR DOES HE RE REVIEW PLANS. I KNOW THAT, AND I DIDN'T ASK YOUR ATTORNEY YEAH. TO BRING THE EMPLOYEE HERE. OKAY. I DIDN'T, I COULD HAVE, YEAH, WE COULD HAVE SUBPOENAED THE EMPLOYEE THAT PUSHED THE BUTTON. YOU, YOU CERTAINLY COULD HAVE. YES. AND WE CHOSE NOT TO. OKAY. BUT THIS OBFUSCATION OF WHO AND WHAT HAPPENED, WHAT THE DECISION MAKING WAS AT THE BEGINNING, AND NOW ALMOST BEGS THE QUESTION, WHO WAS IT AND WHY DID HE OR SHE PUSH THE BUTTON? AND THEN WHAT TRIGGERED THIS TO CHANGE? THE BUTTON BEING PUSHED TO REVOKE BECAUSE IT WAS APPROVED IN ERROR. THE ZONING WAS APPROVED IN ERROR BY A ZONING PLANS EXAMINER. THE LEADERSHIP TEAM WAS MADE AWARE OF THE SIX MONTHS LATER THIS. OKAY. MS. WEIMER, UM, IS IT COMMON THAT MISTAKES ARE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP WHEN SOMEBODY MAKES A REPORT OR ASKS A QUESTION? YES. IS THAT HOW THE MISTAKEN ZONING APPROVAL AND CO ISSUANCE WAS DISCOVERED IN THIS CASE? YES. THAT'S HOW IT WAS DISCOVERED. SHOULD THE CO HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO BE CLEAR? NO. IT SHOULD NOT HAVE. [05:45:01] IN YOUR, ARE YOU, ARE YOU SURE THAT IT'S NOT A POLICY CHANGE ON THE FACT OF THE NO, IT IS NOT A POLICY CHANGE. CITY MANAGER OR DIRECTOR OR BUILDING OFFICIAL OR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OR PLANS EXAMINER. ARE YOU SURE IT'S NOT A POLICY CHANGE? YES, I AM SURE IT'S NOT A POLICY CHANGE. YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THAT THERE WAS A POLICY CHANGE. THAT WAS YEARS AGO. THIS WAS JUST TWO, JUST JUST TWO YEARS AGO. I THINK IT WAS LONGER THAN TWO YEARS AGO. OKAY. THREE YEARS AGO. OKAY. THAT WAS A POLICY CHANGE. SO I'M ASKING THERE, THIS WAS NOT A POLICY CHANGE, THIS, ARE YOU SURE IT WASN'T A POLICY CHANGE? YES, I'M POSITIVE. YES. IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, IS IT ROUTINE AND REQUIRED PRACTICE TO REVOKE A CO WHEN IT IS DISCOVERED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN ERROR? YES. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MUST REVOKE IT. IF ISSUED AN ERROR, I'LL PASS THE WITNESS. OKAY. BEFORE YOU PASS THE WITNESS. AND, UH, I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, YOU TESTIFIED THAT, UH, APRIL 9TH THE CO WAS ISSUED, AND ON APRIL 11TH YOU DISCOVERED IT. THEY'RE STILL UNCLEAR HOW IT WAS DISCOVERED AND SO FORTH. HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT POKER WAS ILLEGAL? WHO DID YOU GO TO TO, TO AFFIRM THAT, THAT THIS USE WAS ILLEGAL, THAT POKER WAS ILLEGAL IN THE STATE OF TEXAS? THAT THIS USE, THAT THIS USE, THIS LAND USE DATED OCTOBER 7TH. WHO DID YOU GO TO TO GET DIRECTION ON THAT? OR DID YOU MAKE THAT POLICY DECISION? I DID NOT MAKE A POLICY DECISION. I'M NOT A POLICYMAKER. I KNOW THAT THE CITY'S POSITION IS THAT POKER IS ILLEGAL. I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN MANY OF THESE CASES IN THE PAST. I TALKED TO OUR CITY ATTORNEYS. I'VE BEEN REPRESENTED BY THEM. I'VE BEEN IN MANY OF THESE HEARINGS. SO YOU DIDN'T CONSULT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO, TO INTERPRET WHETHER IT WAS JUST YOUR DECISION AS THAT POKER IS ILLEGAL? I DID NOT UNILATERALLY MAKE THAT DECISION. OKAY. AND WERE YOU AWARE THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ON AUGUST 24TH, 2024? YES. AND I KNOW THAT IT HAD NO MERITS. UM, IT, IT DIDN'T SPEAK TO THE MERITS OF THE USE. I WAS AWARE OF THAT, YES. THAT'S A NOW YOU'RE, NOW YOU'RE MAKING A LEGAL DETERMINATION. OKAY. I I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. I'M NOT MAKING A LEGAL DETERMINATION. I AM AWARE OF THE DECISION, YES. OKAY. BECAUSE THAT WOULD PUT THE POLICY IN QUESTION, WOULDN'T IT? I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME. THE APPEALS COURT DECISION REVERSED THE TRIAL COURT. THE TRIAL COURT SAID IT WAS ILLEGAL USE AND THE PROCESS WAS INCORRECT. THE APPEALS COURT REVERSED THE TRIAL COURT, WHICH MEANS THE LAW, THE LAND IN TEXAS WAS THE APPEALS COURT DECISION IN AUGUST 24TH, 2000, UH, 2024. I, I'M TRYING TO GET TO AGAIN, WHO WITHIN THE BUILDING OFFICIALS MAKING THE INITIAL DECISION AND THEN THE CHANGE OF THE DECISION. THERE WASN'T A CHANGE OF A DECISION. WE DO RECOGNIZE, AGAIN, IT IS THE CITY'S POSITION THAT POKER IS ILLEGAL. ONE PLANS EXAMINER WHO DID A ZONING REVIEW MIS MADE A MISTAKE AND APPROVED THIS IN ERROR WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE LEADERSHIP'S ATTENTION, WE SAID POKER IS ILLEGAL. THAT HAS BEEN THE CITY'S ONGOING STANCE FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW. WE REVOKED IT BECAUSE IT WAS ISSUED IN ERROR. THERE WAS NO POLICY CHANGE THROUGHOUT THE TIME OF THIS APPLICATION. IT WAS A MISTAKE. AND WE CORRECTED THE MISTAKE. ARE, ARE YOU DONE WITH THE WITNESS FOR NOW? YES, MR. MANN, YOU HAVE THE CONSISTENT WITH OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE. YOU HAVE THE, THE RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINEE THE WITNESS, MR. MANN. ALRIGHT, MS. WEER YES. CHAMPION CO WAS REVOKED BEFORE THEY EVEN BEGAN TO OPERATE POKER. SO I'M, I'M NOT SURE I GOT IT CLEARLY. WHO TOLD YOU TO RE-REVIEW THE APPLICATION BEFORE THEY EVEN OPENED? I, WE, WE GOT A QUESTION AND I MEAN, WHO FROM WHOM? I, IF IT WAS A QUESTION OR A COMPLAINT THAT'S CONFIDENTIAL. WHAT? SAY THAT AGAIN? I SAID IF WE GOT A COMPLAINT OR A QUESTION THAT'S CONFIDENTIAL. I DON'T THINK IT'S, HIS QUESTION WAS WHO BROUGHT IT TO YOUR ATTENTION? OH, UM, OUR, ONE OF OUR DEPUTY DIRECTORS, AS I STATED EARLIER, GOT THE QUESTION AND BROUGHT IT TO MY ATTENTION. HE SAID, HEY, BUT JUST, JUST WHO, LIKE WHICH DEPUTY DIRECTOR? VERN VERNON. VERNON, VERNON YOUNG, WHOEVER OVERSEES THE PERMITTING. YEAH. AND SO HE GETS A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT PERMITTING. OKAY. OKAY. AND, AND WHY, WHERE DID HE GET THE IDEA TO BRING IT UP TO YOU? UM, BECAUSE I OVERSEE ZONING AND IT'S A LAND USE ISSUE. NO, I MEAN, HE DOESN'T REGULARLY COME TO YOU AND ASK ABOUT A CO BEFORE A BUSINESS EVEN OPENS. DOES HE? I MEAN, HE ASKS QUESTIONS OF ME ABOUT ZONING OR LAND USE MATTERS ON APPLICATIONS. SURE. OTHER THAN RIGHT. I JUST, SO IT WAS IN THAT CONTEXT. I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE NOT VERNON, UNFORTUNATELY, HE'S NOT HERE. I DON'T THINK SO. I'M JUST [05:50:01] TRYING TO ESTABLISH WHAT PROMPTED HIM TO REQUEST THAT YOU RE-REVIEW OUR CO BEFORE WE EVEN STARTED OPERATING. AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW. YEAH, I MEAN, I, I DON'T KNOW. HE ASKED THE QUESTION, WAS THERE, DID WE, UH, APPROVE A POKER HOUSE HERE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? AND I THOUGHT, OH, I SURE HOPE WE DIDN'T. AND THEN LOOKED AT THE APPLICATION. YOU DON'T KNOW HOW HE KNEW THAT YOU DID? YOU WOULD HAVE TO, I'M NOT VERNON. I DON'T, I CAN'T ANSWER QUESTION. OKAY. HE'S NOT PRESENT. HE'S NOT PRESENT. OKAY. AND I'M NOT SURE. WELL, OKAY. NOT SURE THAT IT'S RELEVANT. . UM, ARE YOU AWARE OF THE SAFE HARBOR PROVISION OF THE TEXAS PENAL CODE THAT PROVIDES AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO KEEPING A GAMBLING IN PLACE IF IT OCCURS IN A PRIVATE PLACE? NO ECONOMIC BENEFIT IS RECEIVED OTHER THAN WINNINGS AND EXCEPT FOR THE SKILL OR LUCK, THE ODDS ARE EVEN I, I MEAN I AM AWARE OF THAT PROVISION, YES. OKAY. SO THE REVOCATION LETTER INDICATES THAT A REVIEW OF OUR LAND USE STATEMENT SHOWS A VIOLATION OF THE PENAL CODE. IN LOOKING AT THE FLOOR PLANS AND THE LAND USE STATEMENT, THEY IDENTIFY POKER, BUT THEY DON'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HOW IT WILL BE CONDUCTED OTHER THAN IT WILL BE LEGAL. SO WHAT IN OUR APPLICATION CAUSED YOU TO REVOKE IT? UH, JUST THE, AGAIN, THE CITY'S POSITION HAS BEEN THAT POKER IS ILLEGAL AND THAT A PRIVATE PLACE IS OKAY. YEAH. YEAH. SO, SO YOUR DETERMINATION IS THAT ANY COMMERCIAL POKER IS ILLEGAL, CORRECT? YES. THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. AND ISN'T IT CORRECT THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, I'M SORRY, YOU KEEP HAVING TO DO THIS, UH, REVOKED COS OF TEXAS CARDHOUSE SHUFFLE 2 1 4 AND CHAMPIONS IN THIS CASE ALL FOR THAT EXACT SAME REASON? YES. OKAY. THANKS MEGAN. YES, THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. TOMMY. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU. UH, OR DID YOU WANNA REDIRECT FIRST MS. RODRIGUEZ, THEN I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR HER. I DO NOT HAVE ANY REDIRECT FROM MS. WEER. OKAY. UM, THE, THE DOCUMENT THAT WE HAVE IN THE, IN THE DOCKET DOCUMENT. IN THE DOCKET, I'M SORRY, MR. RODRIGUEZ, YOU SAID YOU DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS FOR HER? NO. IS IT OKAY IF I JUST STAND NEXT TO HER? OH, OF COURSE. OF COURSE. UM, THIS CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY THAT WE WERE PROVIDED, UH, YOUR ATTORNEY, THE BILL BILL, THE CITY ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE BILL FISH, I HAD IT HAD PROVIDED IT, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED IT, UM, AS WELL AS THE LAND USE STATEMENT. IS THIS THE DOCUMENT? IS THIS THE DOCUMENT THAT ACTUALLY GETS POSTED IN, IN A BUILDING IN A, IN A, IN A PLACE OF BUSINESS CERTIFYING? THEY HAVE A CO UM, I'M, IS THERE A, UM, EXHIBIT NUMBER ON THAT PARTICULAR DOCUMENT? UM, IT'S GOT AN ISSUE DATE AND IT'S GOT A, A CO NUMBER. WELL, OKAY. YEAH, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE WAS A, IF IT WAS INCLUDED IN OUR PACKET PREPARED. IT'S ON PAGE 66. YEAH, WE DON'T HAVE PAGE NUMBERS. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT THE EXACT SAME. YOU'RE LOOKING, THERE'S ONLY ONE. OKAY. THERE'S ONLY ONE FROM HERE. IT APPEARS TO, WELL, IT IT'S DATED FOUR NINE. IT'S SIGNED BY SAM ESDA AND IT'S CO NUMBER 2 4 1 0 0 7 1 1 7 2. SO MY, MY QUESTION GOES SEVERALFOLD, NUMBER ONE, IT JUST SAYS RESTAURANT WITHOUT DRIVE-IN SERVICE. IT DOESN'T REFERENCE INSIDE AMUSEMENT, SHOULD I? RIGHT. SO YEAH, I, I, AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. I I WILL TAKE YOUR WORD THAT THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. I HAVE, I HAVE SEEN THAT. YES, I'M YES, YES, YES. WHY DOESN'T IT SAY THE INSIDE AMUSEMENT? SO YEAH, I, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, BUT IN THE ACTUAL, WE HAVE THE PRINTOUT. SO THE APPLICATION WAS FOR BOTH A RESTAURANT AND COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE, AND THERE ARE NOTES AND COMMENTS IN THE PERMITTING SYSTEM THAT SAY THE CO IS FOR A RESTAURANT WITHOUT DRIVING OR DRIVE THROUGH SERVICE. THANK YOU TOMMY. AND A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE. I DON'T KNOW HOW IT DIDN'T CARRY OVER ONTO THE CO, BUT THAT WAS NOTED IN THE OKAY. WELL, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. I I'M SAYING IN THIS QUASI JUDICIAL PROCESS, IT CREATES CONFUSION MM-HMM . BECAUSE IT WA IT MAKES US WONDER WHY WASN'T THIS INCLUDED? WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS AND WHETHER THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIRED IN THEIR, THEIR ORIGINAL DECISION AND THEIR SUBSEQUENT REVOCATION. IT ALSO REFERENCES A BUNCH OF REMARKS ON THE BOTTOM, WHICH I, I FOUND COMICAL OR STRANGE, BUT, SO I'M, I'M GONNA READ THEM OUT LOUD AND THEN ASK WHERE DOES THIS COME FROM AND WHY IS THIS ON HERE AND WHY IS THIS INCOMPLETE? OKAY. IT SAYS ALL OUTDOOR SPEAKERS AND OR AUDIO VISUAL EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO TELEVISIONS OR PROJECTORS MUST BE TURNED OFF BY 10:00 PM ON SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY AND 11:00 PM ON FRIDAYS AND SATURDAYS. NO OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT IS PERMITTED ON FRIDAYS OR SATURDAYS [05:55:01] AND SATURDAYS. NO. OKAY. NO. OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT IS PERMITTED ON FRIDAYS AND SATURDAYS. NO OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT IS PERMIT, I APOLOGIZE. THE MAXIMUM NOISE LEVEL OF THE USE MEASURED FROM THE BOUND, THE BOUNDARY IS BOUNDARY MEANT TO SAY BOUNDARY, BUT IT SAYS BOUNDING LOT LINE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS 63 DECIBELS. THIS USE MAY NOT HAVE A VISIBLE SOURCE OF ILLUMINATION THAT PRODUCES GLARE OR, AND THEN IT DISAPPEARS. YEAH. YEAH. THAT'S SO, SO WHAT'S IN THE REST OF THE PERMIT? YEAH. SO FOR THE CO RIGHT. SO I WILL FIRST, IF I COULD JUST SPEAK TO WHAT THOSE REMARKS ARE, UM, SO TO CALL BACK, UH, WE HAD THE CONVERSATION OR YEAH, THE DISCUSSION RECENTLY ABOUT LAND USES BEING ALLOWED IN DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS, SOME OF THEM BEING BY RIGHT. SOME OF THEM BY BEING BY SEP, SOME OF THEM BEING WITH A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW. SO IN THIS, SAY THAT AGAIN. RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW AND, AND BEFORE THIS HEARING, I HAD NEVER HEARD OF THAT BEFORE. AND THEN I STARTED ASKING ABOUT THAT TO OUR, OUR BOARD ATTORNEY ABOUT WHAT IN THE WORLD IS RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY. YOU AND I CAN, I CAN EDUCATE THE BOARD IF, IF YOU SO DESIRE. I THINK OUR, I THINK OUR BOARD ATTORNEY WANTS YOU TO, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING MS. THERESA? SHE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW TOO. OKAY. ALRIGHT. I'VE GOT A COPY OF IT, BUT GO AHEAD. YEAH, YEAH. UM, AND THAT'S WHY THIS IS RELEVANT HERE. SO THE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE USE IS ALLOWED JUST BY, RIGHT IN THE ME ONE DISTRICT, A RESTAURANT IS, IS ALLOWED WITH A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW. AND THAT IS BECAUSE IT IS WITHIN 330 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. SO IT TRIGGERED A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW FOR THE RESTAURANT. AND THESE ARE PRETTY TYPICAL, UM, PRETTY TYPICAL CONDITIONS THAT ARE PLACED ON A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW. LIKE ARE THERE THINGS THAT COULD BE DONE TO MAKE THE USE MORE COMPATIBLE? COMPATIBLE TO WHAT? TO THE RESIDENTIAL, TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA? YES. OKAY. SO, SO BLAIR NOISE, THINGS LIKE THAT. AND IS THIS SOMETHING WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL? YES. RIGHT NOW IT, IT IS. AND WE, I BELIEVE THE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN KEPT PRETTY STANDARD, BUT THE, BUT IT'S WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO APPLY 51 A DASH 4 8 0 0 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT REVIEW. OH, NO. WELL, IT, IT'S NOT WITHIN THE DISCRETION TO APPLY THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW IF IT IS REQUIRED, BECAUSE THE USE REQUIRES IT, AND IT IS WITHIN THE DISTANCE OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT TRIGGERS IT WELL UNDER, UNDER THE, IN THE PACKET. OKAY. PAGE 71, IT REFERENCES RESTAURANT WITHOUT DRIVE-IN AND IT HAS IN BRACKETS RAR. YEP. SO THAT MEANS IT'S PART OF THAT DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. IT IT IS A REQUIREMENT TO, TO GO THROUGH THAT RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW AND, AND THAT GOES TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL? WELL, YES. WHE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S APPLIED IS NOT DISCRETIONARY, BUT WHETHER BUT WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE, OF COURSE. YES. YES. OKAY. SO WHAT DOES THE REST OF THIS CO CO HAVE AS PART OF REQUIREMENTS? YEAH, I'M GONNA LOOK IN WHAT I WANTED TO GET. OKAY. YES. I CAN REVIEW WHAT, WHAT I WANTED TO GET ON THE RECORD IS YEAH, THIS RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY ADJACENCY IS WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, WHICH PUTS IT IN OUR DISCRETION. OH YES. WELL, AS OKAY, THE CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS, YES. THE CONDITIONS WE OPERATE IN THE STEAD OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WHEN WE ARE ASKED TO REVIEW A DECISION. OKAY. SO I CAN READ YOU THE REST OF WHAT THAT REMARK WAS. I GUESS IT WAS TOO LENGTHY TO FIT SO THAT, UM, SO IT CUT OFF HERE AFTER GLARE, WAS THAT, IF YOU COULD REMIND ME PLEASE. CHAIRMAN, IT TALKS ABOUT PRODUCES GLARE OR, UM, OH YES. RE PRODUCES GLARE OR DIRECT ILLUMINATION ACROSS A PROPERTY LINE. ALL WORK SUBJECT TO FIELD INSPECTOR APPROVAL. THAT WAS THE REST OF IT. SUBJECT TO FIELD, YES. INSPECTOR APPROVAL. I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY STANDARD NOTE ON COS. OKAY. I HAVEN'T LOOKED A LOT OF COS TO KNOW WHETHER THIS IS STANDARD ELECTION. MS. HAYDEN HAS A QUESTION. ALRIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO ZERO IN ON WHAT INDEED THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ISSUED MM-HMM . AND EXERCISE OF THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS BECAUSE THAT INDEED IS WHAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL EXERCISED MS. HAYDEN. SO JUST SO I'M CLEAR ON THE PROCESS, WHEN, WHEN SOMEONE APPLIES FOR A CO UM, YOU, YOU SAID IT WAS THE ZONING DEPARTMENT OR THE ZONING OFFICIAL MM-HMM . THAT MADE THE MISTAKE ON, ON THE ZONING. UM, BUT AT WHAT POINT DOES THIS RESIDENTIAL [06:00:01] ADJACENCY REVIEW COME INTO PLAY? UM, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE SOMEBODY DOING THAT REVIEW WOULD ALSO NOTICE, HEY, THIS IS, THIS SAYS POKER ALL OVER THE PLANS AND IN THE PERMIT. SO WHERE DO, WHERE DOES THAT COME IN? YEP. UM, THAT IS THE ZONING PLANS EXAMINER AS WELL AND THAT, YES. WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DOES THE BOARD HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT'S? EXCUSE ME, FOR THE BUILDING OFFICIALS WITNESS? UM, UH, LET ME ASK A PROCEDURAL THING JUST SO I UNDERSTAND. WHEN I FIRST READ THIS CASE THREE MONTHS AGO, I SAID BUILDING IT, YOU APPLY FOR A CO AT THE BEGINNING I THOUGHT THE CO IS AT THE END, BUT IF I COME IN AND WANNA OPERATE A BUSINESS, I APPLY FOR THE CO UPFRONT. WELL, I THOUGHT I APPLY FOR A PERMIT AND SEQUENTIAL PERMITS. YES. THAT CULMINATES IN THE CO THAT IS CORRECT. OH, SO THERE ARE THESE PERMITS AFTER PERMIT AFTER THAT THAT UNDERLIE AND THE SUBSET, THE TOTALITY OF THE GREEN TAGS, I GO BACK TO MM-HMM . MM-HMM GIVE WEIGHT TO ISSUE THE, THE CO YEAH. AS, AS PART OF ULTIMATELY TO OCCUPY. SO THE PERMITS ARE TO DO THE CONSTRUCTION OR THE REMODEL YEP. AND ALL THE TRADES. RIGHT. AND THEN TO ACTUALLY OCCUPY THE BUILDING, UM, THERE MUST BE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, WHICH ALLOWS THE BUILDING TO BE OCCUPIED. IGI THINK FOR COMMERCIAL, NOT RESIDENTIAL. RIGHT. FOR COMMERCIAL. CORRECT. AND, AND WAS THERE A FIELD INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO THE CO BEING ISSUED? UM, WELL THERE WERE INSPECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE, WAS THERE A FIELD INSPECTION? YES. YES. YES. AND SO, AND SO NOT ONLY DID THE PLANS EXAMINER SOMEHOW MISS THIS, BUT THE, THE FIELD INSPECTOR DID, BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLANS AND THE LAND USE, IT POINTS OUT WHAT'S GOING, WHAT'S GONNA, RIGHT. IF, IF I, IF I MAY, SO THERE IS, SO EACH INDIVIDUAL TRADE DOING INSPECTION, SO THE MECHANICAL INSPECTOR NOW WE WERE TOLD EARLIER BY ANOTHER WITNESS FOR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, YOU DON'T LOOK AT THOSE, THOSE AREN'T RELEVANT. THIS IS WHAT MS. MENDELSON TOLD US. OKAY. RIGHT. YOU JUST A SECOND. OKAY. THE BUILDING OFFICIALS WITNESS TOLD US, DON'T LOOK AT THOSE, IGNORE THOSE PEOPLE. I, MY QUESTION WENT INTO THE FIELD INSPECTION. YES. SO I, IF I'M, IF I MAY, I WAS GETTING TO THAT. YES. SO THE FIELD INSPECTIONS ARE, EACH INDIVIDUAL TRADE IS INSPECTED, THE PLUMBING IS INSPECTED BY A PLUMBING INSPECTOR WHO'S LOOKING AT THE PLUMBING PLANS AND MAKING SURE THAT EVERYTHING WAS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND, YOU KNOW, MEET IT MEETS REQUIREMENTS. SO AT THE TIME THOSE IN INSPECT INSPECTIONS OCCUR, THE BUILDING ISN'T YET OCCUPIED. SO IT'S PROBABLY JUST OPEN FLOOR SPACE. THEY'RE LOOKING AT PIPES, THEY'RE LOOKING AT, UH, YOU KNOW, MECHANICALS, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, THE INSPECTION FOR THE CO ALSO HAPPENS BEFORE THE BUILDING IS OCCUPIED. SO THE INSPECTIONS THAT ARE BEING DONE, THERE ARE LIFE SAFETY. LIKE IS THIS AN OCCUPY? IS THIS BUILDING SAFE TO OCCUPY? BUT IT'S THE SAME PLANS THAT CALL OUT POKER THIS AND POKER THAT AND THE LAND USE STATEMENT. AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO GO THROUGH WHAT THE PROCESS WAS TO ISSUE WHAT THE PROCESS WAS TO REVOKE. RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO EXAMINE. YEAH. THANK YOU. WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE? YES, MR. HOPKOS? SO JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. SO THE LAST TIME SOMEBODY GOES FROM THE CITY TO LOOK AT ANY PROPERTY THAT IS APPLYING FOR OCCUPANCY, IT MAY NOT BE AS, IT'S GOING TO BE WHEN IT'S OPEN FOR OCCUPANCY. CORRECT? IT COULD BE, IT COULD BE NOT A SINGLE TABLE IN A RESTAURANT. CORRECT. IF A RESTAURANT THAT'S CORRECT. UM, AND THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY THAT WE HAVE WITH ITS TRUNCATED SENTENCES AND SO FORTH, RIGHT. THAT'S THE ACTUAL THING THAT'S SENT TO THE PERSON WHO OWNS THE BUILDING. THAT'S WHAT'S THEY GET. THEY DON'T GET ALL THE TEXT, UM, OF THAT. SO THAT YEAH. THAT IT'S, IT'S UNUSUAL THAT THEY, UM, THAT IT WASN'T PRINTED OUT, BUT THEY WOULD BE. SO YES, THIS IS WHAT THEY HAVE, BUT THEY WOULD'VE BEEN MADE AWARE OF THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REQUIREMENTS, UH, DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS. BUT I I GET YOUR POINT. THEY, THIS NEEDS TO BE A COMPLETE DOCUMENT. I'M SORRY, SAY THAT AGAIN. IT NEEDS TO BE A WHAT? COMPLETE DOCUMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, THIS SHOULD HAVE ALL CONDITIONS LISTED. IN OTHER WORDS, [06:05:01] IT'S NOT A COMPLETE DOCUMENT. YES. HOW, HOWEVER, I WILL OKAY. SO I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS AS, AS YOU'VE DESCRIBED IT. YEAH. WOULD IT THEN I'M GONNA MAKE THIS A HYPOTHETICAL CASE, RIGHT. I OPEN UP A BUILDING THAT I PURPORT IS GOING TO BE USED FOR X. RIGHT. NOBODY EVER COMES TO SEE IF I'M DOING X THERE, I COULD BE DOING Y NOBODY EVER CHECKS UNLESS SOMEBODY FILES A COMPLAINT. SO THAT, THAT IS CORRECT. AND NOT TO GET TOO OFF TRACK HERE, BUT AS PART, AS I MENTIONED, THE BUILDING IS NOT OCCUPIED YET. AT THE TIME THE INS THE CO INSPECTION IS DONE, THEY NEED THE CO IN ORDER TO OCCUPY IT. THERE IS A FEE THAT IS CHARGED AS PART, IT'S A NOMINAL FEE, BUT THAT GOES TOWARDS CODE COMPLIANCE. SO BUILDING INSPECTION IS INVOLVED DURING THE REVIEW AND INSPECTION PHASE AFTER THE CO IS ISSUED. WE HAVE, WE NO LONGER HAVE PURVIEW OVER IT. WE CANNOT ENTER THE BUILDING. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T, WE'RE NOT AUTHORIZED TO BE ON THE SITE. AND SO THAT WOULD BE CODE COMPLIANCE EITHER PROACTIVELY, WHICH I DON'T THINK EITHER PROACTIVELY OR BASED ON A COMPLAINT THAT THEY WOULD VISIT. SO WHEN I REFERENCED THAT FEE EARLIER, I THINK THE THOUGHT IS CODE COMPLIANCE DOES OR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO GO CHECK TO MAKE SURE THAT A BUSINESS IS OPERATING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CO THAT WAS ISSUED TO THEM. THAT WOULD SEEMED TO BE A MASSIVE LOOPHOLE THAT COULD BE EXPLOITED. RIGHT. RIGHT. I MEAN, WE, WE TAKE AT FACE VALUE THE PLANS AND INFORMATION THAT'S SUBMITTED TO US AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS WITH OPERATION. I MEAN, ANYONE COULD DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL AT ANY TIME AND WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT. THANK YOU. YES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE BUILDING OFFICIALS WITNESS? WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION. I'M NOT SURE FOR WHO. OKAY. I, I, I'M NOT SURE I REALLY UNDERSTAND THIS ISSUE OF RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY. I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA THANK YOU. PURSUE IT FURTHER AND I WOULD SAY THAT'S RELEVANT TO THE RESTAURANT USE, BUT NOT THE COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT SIDE, BUT IT'S THE RESTAURANT. YEAH. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU MS. UH, RODRIGUEZ. MR. CHAIRMAN, I CONFESS I'VE KIND OF LOST TRACK OF WHERE WE ARE. SO SHE'S COMPLETED HER TESTIMONY. YES. AND MR. MANN'S HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINEE. DID YOU WANT ANY FURTHER REDIRECT? I DON'T THINK I GET IT. NO, I'M CROSS, I MEAN, RECROSS, RECROSS, I'M SORRY. YEAH, I WOULD LOVE TO IF I CAN , BUT I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ME. YES. I I'LL ALLOW IT TO STAY ON POINT. LET'S NOT BE REDUNDANT. OKAY. SO MEGAN, ON RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REVIEW YEAH. YOU DON'T HAVE DISCRETION WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW THE USE, RIGHT. YOU ONLY HAVE DISCRETION ON SETBACKS, LIGHTING, COVERING UP DUMPSTERS, THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT THE USE YOU CAN'T DENY RIGHT. BECAUSE OF RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY? CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH. AND A RESTAURANT WAS HERE FOR A LONG TIME BEFORE CHAMPIONS. RIGHT. RIGHT. OKAY. THANKS. YEAH, THANK YOU MS. RODRIGUEZ. AT THIS POINT, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE BOARD PANEL MEMBERS AWARE THAT WE DO HAVE SAM A SCANNER, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HERE IN CASE OF QUESTIONS. I'M NOT PLANNING TO CALL HIM AS A WITNESS, BUT HE HAS BEEN SWORN IN. ALSO HAVE JENNIFER GYER, UH, A MEMBER OF OUR, UH, STAFF HERE SHE IS FAMILIAR WITH. AND IF, IF THE BOARD HAS SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCESS AND TIMELINE OF THIS PARTICULAR CO APPLICATION, UH, AND THE APPLICATION THAT CAME BEFORE AND THE SERIES OF INSPECTIONS THAT WERE DONE AFTER THE APPLICATION WAS FILED, BUT BEFORE THE CO WAS ISSUED, SHE WOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT PLANNING TO CALL HER AS A WITNESS. UM, AND I WILL, I THINK WE'VE COVERED JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING. I WILL RESERVE THE REST OF MY ARGUMENT UNTIL MY CLOSING STATEMENT. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, WE ARE AT THE, THE JUNCTION WHERE THE, UM, APPLICANT WILL BE ALLOWED A THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL. THE APPLICANT THEN WILL BE ALLOWED A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT, THEN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WILL BE ALLOWED A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT. I THINK EVERYONE HAS HAD PLENTY OF TIME ON BOTH SIDES TO PRESENT [06:10:01] AND OR ASK QUESTIONS OF WITNESSES. UH, THIS IS THE SAME SHEET OF PAPER I READ A FEW HOURS AGO. SO I'M TRYING TO FOLLOW THE, THE, OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE. SO THE APPLICANT NOW IS ALLOWED UP TO THREE MINUTES AND I'M GONNA KEEP YOU TO THREE, THREE MINUTE REBUTTAL. THIS IS REBUTTAL NOT CLOSING. OKAY. UM, OUR CO WAS DENIED FOR A REVOKED FOR ONE REASON. THAT'S ALL IT WAS, THAT WE WERE FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS PENAL CODE. THAT'S ALL WE'VE APPEALED. THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE WE'RE SEEKING CLARITY ON TODAY. THE CITY ATTORNEY CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. IT CANNOT BE CLEAR THAT COMMERCIALIZED POKER VIOLATES THE PENAL CODE. WHILE THE SUPREME COURT HAS CONFIRMED THE LEGALITY OF IT. THEY CANNOT WARN THIS PANEL NOT TO GRANT OUR APPEAL BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE TO SUE YOU WHILE THEY HAVE ALREADY SUED YOU. THE CITY CANNOT CLAIM ITS ZONING REGULATIONS ALREADY PROHIBIT OUR USE AND BEGIN A PROCESS TO AMEND ITS ZONING REGULATIONS TO PROHIBIT OUR USE. THE CITY ATTORNEY CANNOT STATE IN A PUBLIC HEARING THAT COMMERCIALIZED POKER IS PROTECTED BY THE SAFE HARBOR PROVISION AND REVOKE OUR CO BECAUSE IT IS NOT, THE CITY CANNOT ARGUE THAT THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT'S RULING IN TCH WILL CONTROL THE OUTCOME OF OUR APPEAL, YET REFUSE TO CONCEDE WHEN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST THEM. IF COMMERCIALIZED POKER IS CLEARLY ILLEGAL, THE COURT OF APPEALS IN TEXAS, SUPREME COURT COULD NOT HAVE RULED IN FAVOR OF TCH AND ALLOWED THEM TO OPERATE THE COURT OF APPEALS IN TEXAS. SUPREME COURT DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPROVE THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME. THE CITY ATTORNEY'S POSITION ON THE LAW CANNOT BE CORRECT. THE CITY DID NOT CONDUCT ANY EXAMINATION OF OUR PROPOSED OPERATIONS. WHY? AS THEY TESTIFIED, THEIR POSITION IS THAT COMMERCIALIZED POKER CAN NEVER BE LEGAL. THAT CONCLUSION, THAT LEGAL CONCLUSION HAS ALREADY BEEN REFUTED BY THIS PANEL TWICE THE DALLAS COURT OF APPEALS. AND 10 DAYS AGO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT. NEITHER THE LAW NOR THE EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S POSITION, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CLEARLY AIRED ACCORDING TO OUR RULES, THE APPLICANT IS NOW ALLOWED A THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENT. I'M FOLLOWING THE RULES THEN WE WILL FOLLOW WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAVING THREE MINUTE CLOSING STATEMENTS. SO THE APPLICANT, MR. MANN, IF YOU PLACE YOURSELF IN THE SHOES OF MY CLIENT, IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE THAT THEY FEEL THEY'VE BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY COMPARED TO SIMILARLY SITUATED BUSINESSES WHOSE CEOS WERE AFFIRMED BY THIS BOARD. THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR REQUEST AND THE OTHERS IS THE LEVEL OF POLITICAL OPPOSITION. AND THAT REALITY HAS LAID ITSELF BARE TODAY. A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL TESTIFIED BEFORE YOU FOR 15 MINUTES. THIS IS THE WRONG MEETING FOR A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE PARTICIPATING IN A ZONING HEARING, AN AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS. THIS SITUATION BEGS FOR A LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION IF THEY WANT TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THESE CONSTITUENTS. BUT THIS IS NOT A LEGISLATIVE ITEM. THIS IS A PERMITTING ITEM. WE DIDN'T TRY TO TRICK ANYONE WITH OUR CO AFTER WE WERE DENIED, WE WATCHED THE SAME ISSUE, DECIDED DIFFERENTLY TWICE. ONLY AFTER THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THAT DECISION. DID WE MAKE A NEW APPLICATION? IT WASN'T UNDERCOVER OF DARKNESS. YOU'VE HEARD, WE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED POKER AS PART OF THE OPERATIONS IN OUR INITIAL APPLICATION. MULTIPLE INSPECTIONS AND REVIEWS OCCURRED OVER THAT TIME AND NONE OF THOSE REVIEWERS OR INSPECTORS ASKED US A SINGLE QUESTION ABOUT POKER OR REQUESTED ANY CLARIFICATION ON HOW WE MIGHT OPERATE IT. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CLAIMS THIS WAS A SIMPLE MISTAKE. THE ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO PROMPTED THE REVIEW OF THIS ISN'T HERE. SO I GUESS WE JUST HAVE TO TAKE THE WORD OF THE WORD FOR IT. WE'VE SHOWED TODAY THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS NO EVIDENCE. WE'VE SHOWED THAT HAD THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OBTAINED ANY EVIDENCE, OUR OPERATIONS WOULD BE PROTECTED BY THE SAFE HARBOR PROVISION OF THE TEXAS PENAL CODE BECAUSE CHAMPIONS HAS TESTIFIED THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO OPERATE POKER EXACTLY AS CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS AND CONFIRMED BY THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT. WE'VE SHOWN YOU LEGAL PRECEDENT FROM COURTS OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS SHOWN NO EVIDENCE AND NO LEGAL PRECEDENT OF ANY KIND. HE HAS SHOWN ONLY A BELIEF OF THE DA AND A HOPE THAT HE MAY WIN IN COURT AGAINST US DESPITE LOSING ON WHAT THE CITY ADMITS IS PRECISELY THE SAME LEGAL QUESTION THAT WAS JUST BEFORE THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT. WE'VE DEMONSTRATED THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE FACTUAL OR LEGAL BASIS IN THIS RECORD TO RULE DIFFERENTLY ON THIS APPEAL THAN ON TCH. WE'VE [06:15:01] SHOWN IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO DO SO, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AIRED. THANK YOU SIR. NOW, THREE MINUTE CLOSING FOR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. THANK YOU AND I APPRECIATE THE CHAIR AND THE BOARD'S TIME THIS AFTERNOON IN THIS LENGTHY, LENGTHY HEARING. IT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE TO THE CITY AND TO THE APPLICANT OBVIOUSLY, AND WE DO APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE. I JUST WANNA HIGHLIGHT A FEW POINTS. FIRST OF ALL, REVOCATION WAS MANDATORY UNDER THE DALLAS CITY CODE. UNDER THE RULES THAT APPLY WHEN AN A CO IS ISSUED AN ERROR, STAFF ERROR, IT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED THERE WAS AN ERROR MADE. STAFF ERROR DOES NOT CREATE SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL RIGHTS. A CO ISSUED AN ERROR IS VOID ABIO. THE PROPOSED USE IS ILLEGAL UNDER TEXAS STATE LAW AND THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE SUPREME COURT HAVE NOT SAID OTHERWISE. A PRIVATE PLACE MEANS A PLACE TO WHICH THE PUBLIC DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS AND EXCLUDES RESTAURANTS. A COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT INSIDE WHICH THEY'VE TRIED TO SHOEHORN THEIR POKER USE INTO ALSO SPEAKS OF BEING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC IN THE PENAL CODE, KEEPING A GAMBLING PLACE. UH, IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE SAFE HARBOR DEFENSE. IT HAS TO BE A PRIVATE PLACE AND THEY HAVE TO HAVE SHOWN THAT NO PERSON RECEIVED ANY ECONOMIC BENEFIT OTHER THAN PERSONAL WINNINGS. THE FACT THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT WILL RECEIVE MEMBERSHIP FEES, WILL RECEIVE REVENUES FROM THE PEOPLE THAT ENTER THE ESTABLISHMENT TO PLAY POKER. THAT IS AN ECONOMIC BENEFIT THAT IS GOING TO BE GAINED BY CHAMPIONS CLUB, THEREFORE DISQUALIFYING THEM FROM THE SAFE HARBOR PROVISION. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS APPLICANT HAS BEEN BEFORE YOU. THE FACTS HAVE NOT CHANGED. THE, UH, THE LAND USE STATEMENT DID NOT CHANGE. THE PLANS DID NOT CHANGE. THEY SUBMITTED THE SAME PLANS FOR A SECOND TIME. THERE'S A LAWSUIT PENDING IN DISTRICT COURT ALREADY THAT CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION OF CHAMPIONS CLUB'S BUSINESS MODEL AND WHETHER IT'S LEGAL AT THIS PLACE UNDER THIS CO, THERE ARE FIVE PENDING LITIGATION MATTERS INVOLVING THE SAME UNDERLYING LEGAL ISSUE. THE DECISION THAT YOU MAKE IN THIS CASE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CREATE INCONSISTENCY IN RESULTS. UM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU, IF WE ARE GOING TO FOLLOW THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION, THEN YOUR DECISION IS ENTITLED TO DEFERENCE. AND THAT'S WHAT THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION SAYS. THE CITY'S STAFF AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ARE NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE CITY CODE TO AUTHORIZE A LAND USE THAT IS ILLEGAL UNDER STATE LAW. IT IS THE DETERMINATION OF THE CITY'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND ADVICE THAT WE GAVE TO THE STAFF THAT THIS USE IS IN FACT ILLEGAL. WE DIDN'T HAVE TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE OF WHAT THEIR, WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE DOING BECAUSE THEY PROVIDED THAT EVIDENCE ON THEIR OWN. THEY PROVIDED A LAND USE STATEMENT AND FLOOR PLANS SHOWING WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE DOING. OUR LEGAL POSITION. THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT WE CHANGED OUR POLICY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT ORIGINATED FROM, BUT LET ME BE CLEAR THAT OUR LEGAL POSITION IN ALL OF THE RECENT POKER ROOM MATTERS HAS BEEN CONSISTENT. WE HAVE, HAVE WILL AND WILL CONTINUE TO TAKE THE POSITION THAT THIS USE IS ILLEGAL THERE. IT, MR. MANN IS CORRECT THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC LAND USE IN THE DALLAS CITY CODE RIGHT NOW THAT IS SPECIFIC TO POKER ROOMS. AND SO WE'RE, WE'RE MAKING OUR DECISIONS BASED ON WHAT IS IN THE CODE AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW. [06:20:01] YOU'RE AT YOUR THREE, YOU'RE AT YOUR THREE MINUTES. OKAY? SO ALL THOSE I OFF JUST WANT YOU, I NEED YOU TO, I'LL, I'LL WRAP UP. THANK TO CONCLUDE. THAT'S ALL, MR. CHAIRMAN. FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, WE NOW GO TO, UH, THE NEXT PHASE OF THIS PROCESS AND THAT IS WHERE WE WILL DISCUSS, DEBATE AND DECIDE RIGHT IN FRONT OF EVERYONE. WE'RE NOT GOING IN THE BACK ROOM AND HAVING A SIDEBAR OR POSTPONING OR THAT'S THE OTHER. UM, AND SO THAT'S THE NEXT PHASE THAT WE'RE GOING TO, UM, BEFORE WE, I PUT A, WE PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION THAT WE WANT TO HAVE? I, I'LL START OFF, UH, A BRIEF DISCUSSION WHICH WE'LL FRAME, I THINK WHERE I WILL GO ON THIS AS ONE OF FIVE MEMBERS. UH, IT WAS VERY INSIGHTFUL, A GENTLEMAN TODAY THAT SAID, THIS IS ABOUT RULES, FACTS AND LAW. AND I'VE BEEN TAKING NOTES AGAINST THOSE THREE COMPONENTS THROUGH THE LAST SEVERAL HOURS. WHAT ARE THE RULES? WHAT ARE THE FACTS AND WHAT'S THE LAW? THE RULES ARE CREATED FOR THIS BODY BY THE CITY COUNCIL. AND OUR JOB IS TO BE QUASI-JUDICIAL ON LAND USE. WE MAKE DECISIONS ON VARIANCES, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS BASED ON SPECIFIC CRITERIA. WE HEAR APPEALS ON ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS WHEN ONE PARTY DOESN'T LIKE THE DECISION OF THE OTHER. AND THEN WE HAVE THIS TRIAL TODAY, BUT WE ARE A LAND USE AND WE ARE NARROWLY FOCUSED ON LAND USE. WE ARE NOT A COURT OF LAW AND WE'VE NEVER BEEN A COURT OF LAW. AND I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT, TENSION OF THE LEGISLATURE THAT CREATED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ACROSS TEXAS. 'CAUSE EVERY CITY HAS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN CODIFYING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITHIN THE CODE. UM, SO WE, AS IT RELATES TO RULES, WE ARE BOUNDED BY WHAT THE CODE SAYS, BY WHAT THE USE IS BY THE ISSUANCE OF A CO BASED ON PERMITTING AND LAND USE. THOSE ARE ALL PART OF THE RULES, BUT WE ARE LIMITED ON OUR SCOPE OF WHAT WE SHOULD RELY ON. FACTS. WOW. ALL DAY TODAY, AS RESPECTFUL AS I AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PANEL COULD BE, WE TRIED TO UNCOVER FACTS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT MY OPINION, NOR MEMBER 1, 2, 3 OR FOUR OR FIVE'S OPINION. QUITE HONESTLY. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE APPLICANT OR THE CITY'S OPINION. THIS IS ABOUT WHAT ARE THE FACTS. PART OF THE REASON WE HAVE THIS PROCESS OF 20 MINUTES, 20 MINUTES, IT WAS A LOT MORE THAN 20 MINUTES. AND THE CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS TO GET TO FACTS. AND YOU CAN DEDUCE FACTS AFTER A WHILE. YOU CAN, AND THEN WE'LL DECIDE BY MAJORITY OR OTHERWISE, WHAT INDEED ARE FACTS. SO WE INDEED DETERMINE ISSUING STATES OF A, A REQUEST REVIEW OF A REQUEST HANDLING BY THE CITY. REMEMBER AT THE BEGINNING I SAID APPLICATION APPROVAL, ISSUANCE, REVOCATION APPEAL. SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS FILL IN THE GAPS OF WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN EACH ONE OF THOSE STEPS TO TRIGGER EACH ONE OF THOSE THINGS. UNFORTUNATELY, FOR THIS ONE MEMBER, THERE'S A LOT STILL UN UN UNSPOKEN WHO, WHY, WHEN, WHO REVIEWED IT OR NOT, WHO TRIGGERED IT OR NOT. WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THE CITY THROUGH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, AND I HEAR THIS CHART SAYING IT'S THE DIRECTOR. NO, IT'S NOT THE DIRECTOR, IT'S THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. NO, IT'S NOT REALLY. IT'S THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR. NO, IT'S NOT BUILDING INSPECTION. IT'S ZONING. WOW. WHERE DOES IT FALL? I MEAN, WHO REALLY IS MAKING THE DECISION HERE TO ISSUE AND WHO'S MAKING THE DECISION TO REVOKE? WE HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC. NOISE LIGHTS IS PART OF THE FACTS AND ABOUT WHY, WHY HOW THIS USE COULD POTENTIALLY, UH, NEGATIVELY AFFECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES LAW. I SAID, I SAID AT THE BEGINNING, WE'RE NOT A COURT OF LAW. I'VE SAID THIS ON OUR OTHER CASES, , WE'RE NOT A, WE'RE NOT A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION. JURISDICTION THAT IS EMPOWERED BY THE LEGISLATURE TO INTERPRET LAW. ALL I DO IS I SCRATCH MY HEAD AND SAY, OKAY, WELL THE LAW IS WHAT THE LEGISLATURES PASSES WITH THE GOVERNOR'S SIGNATURE AND WHAT THE COURTS IN TEXAS INTERPRET. THAT'S WHAT THE LAW IS. IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT [06:25:01] THE LEGISLATOR LEGISLATURE PASSED, YOU FILE SUIT AND YOU LITIGATE IT BETWEEN THE PARTIES FIRST TO A DISTRICT COURT, SECOND TO AN APPEALS COURT AND LAST, IF NOT LEAST TO TEXAS SUPREME COURT. WELL, LOOK, YOU THERE. THAT HAPPENED IN THESE CASES. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WENT THROUGH A HEARING. IT WAS, WE WERE OVERTURNED ON A PREVIOUS CASE. AND A, A DISTRICT COURT SAID, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE GAMBLING IN THIS FORM IS ILLEGAL AND YOUR SYSTEM WAS WRONG. AND WAIT A MINUTE, IT GOT APPEALED TO THE APPEALS COURT AND THE APPEALS COURT, AND I READ IT IN THE RECORD FOUR TIMES, REVERSED THE DISTRICT COURT DECISION AND RE AND, AND REVERSED AND AFFIRMED THE LOWER COURT, THE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS DECISION. AND IN THAT DECISION, THE APPEALS COURT WAS NOT SILENT ON THE ISSUE OF PROCESS. IT WAS NOT SILENT ON THE ISSUE OF THE PENAL CODE AND WHAT GAMBLING WAS OR WAS NOT, AND WAS NOT SILENT ON THE ISSUE OF SAFE HARBOR. IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE BRIEF 12 PAGES. AND WAIT A MINUTE, TEXAS SUPREME, TEXAS SUPREME COURT, IT GOT APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT AND WE WAITED MONTH AFTER MONTH. WE POSTPONED THIS THE FIRST TIME BECAUSE THE TWO PARTIES WERE WAITING FOR A DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT. WE DIDN'T WANNA, WE DIDN'T WANNA POSTPONE IT BECAUSE WE'RE VERY PROUD. I KNOW THIS IS PAT YOURSELF IN THE BACK. NEWMAN, WE'RE VERY PROUD ABOUT GETTING A CASE BEFORE US MAKE A DECISION MOVE ON BECAUSE DUE PROCESS IS NOT DELAYED. BUT WE AGREED TO THE TWO PARTIES TWICE TO POSTPONE THIS WAITING FOR THE SUPREME COURT DECISION. WELL, GUESS WHAT? ON SEPTEMBER 5TH, THE LAST COLUMN OF LAW SPOKE, AND I ASKED BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WHEN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT DOES NOT ACCEPT AN OPINION? IT CONFIRMS AFFIRMS THE LOWER COURT DECISION. I ASK BOTH PARTIES, IS THERE ANY OTHER DECISION THAT'S BINDING IN THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR US AS NOT A LEGAL COURT BUT US AS A ZONING USE COURT TO RELY ON? AND THE ANSWER BY BOTH PARTIES WAS NO. THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DECISION FROM AUGUST OF 2024 IS THE ONLY THING OUT THERE. THE CITY COUNCIL, AND I SAY THIS WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I'M APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR I SERVE AT HIS PLEASURE. THE CITY COUNCIL CHOSE, IT'S IN THE RECORD HERE IN THE, IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE WERE GIVEN RIGHT HERE, PAGE 1 29, THAT ZAC, THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHOSE AND VOTED SEVEN TO ZERO, NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY ZONING OR SUP FOR THIS TYPE OF USE. THEY CALLED IT PRIVATE GAME CLUB. THAT'S AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION NOT TO REGULATE. OKAY, THAT'S NOT MY DECISION, BUT HERE IT COMES BACK TO US. SO WHEN I LOOK AT THE RULES, THE FACTS AND THE LAW FOR THIS ONE MEMBER ONLY TAKES ME ONE WAY. THAT'S MY OPINION AT THIS JUNCTURE. I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION AND TO CONDITION THE MOTION WHEN THE BOARD'S READY OR, OR I'M OPEN FOR COMMENTS. MS. HAYDEN. SO I'M, YOU KNOW, I REALLY STRUGGLE WITH THIS BECAUSE WHEN I, WHEN I CAME THIS HEARING, UM, I HAVE EXPECTED TO SEE THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING HIDDEN ON THE APPLICATION THAT IT WAS BEING, BUT YOU KNOW, IT WAS CLEARLY INDICATED IN THE APPLICATION THAT POKER WAS TO USE HERE. IT WAS CLEARLY INDICATED ON THE FLOOR PLANS. SO WHAT I STRUGGLE WITH IS THIS RESIDENTIAL AREA RIGHT NEXT TO THIS USE. I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S NOT RIGHT. IT, IT'S, IT'S, UM, AND, AND HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THAT? YOU KNOW, AS, AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WE HAVE THE OPTION OF REVERSING THE ADMINISTRA, THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DECISION, AMENDING IT, UM, OR APPROVING IT AND OR GRANTING IT, I GUESS. UM, SO MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN AMEND IT SUCH THAT IT DOESN'T IMPACT THE RESIDENTIAL, THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, IN THE WAY THAT THE HOMEOWNERS FEAR? THANK YOU, MS. HAYDEN. OTHER COMMENTS, MR. NERI? YEAH, I I WOULD JUST LIKE TO STATE THAT TIME AND TIME AGAIN. UH, THE CITY BUILDING OFFICIALS REPRESENTATIVE HAS ASSERTED THAT THE CEO, UH, WAS, UH, ISSUED AN ERROR WHETHER IT WAS A STAFF ERROR OR OTHERWISE, AND THAT ERROR IS ASSERT, THE ASSERTION OF THAT ERROR IS BASED SOLELY ON THE [06:30:01] ILLEGALITY OR LEGALITY OF THE USE. AS THE CHAIRMAN ELOQUENTLY STATED, THAT'S NOT OUR PURVIEW TO DECIDE THE LEGALITY OR ILLEGALITY. SO WHAT WE'RE DECIDING IS WHETHER IT IS A VIABLE LAND USE ONLY AND WITH REGARD TO THE LEGALITY AND THE PENAL CODE, THAT'S STRICTLY FOR THE COURTS TO DECIDE. IT'S NOT FOR US TO DECIDE. UM, SO, UH, THAT, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS ON IT. AND, UH, I WOULD BE, UM, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME, SOMEWHERE, SOME SORT OF AMENDMENT, UH, IN A AN A MOTION GOING FORWARD THAT, UH, WE CAN ASSUAGE, UH, SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED BY BEN TREE NORTH. THANK YOU, MS. DAVIS. UM, THE, THE CITY NEEDED TO PROVE THAT THE CEO WAS ISSUED AN ERROR AND THEY DID NOT. I MEAN, WE BASICALLY GOT INFORMATION MISINFORMATION, UNFORTUNATELY, AND WE, I MEAN, WE GOT THREATENED. WE DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT. AND JUST A LOT OF MISINFORMATION, HIJACKING OF THIS MEETING, A LOT OF INAPPROPRIATE CONVERSATION. SO I, I DID NOT CONVINCE THIS ONE WORD MEMBER. I MEAN, THAT CASE WAS NOT MADE. AND I, I AGREE WITH MS. HAYDEN'S COMMENT ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S NOT PART OF WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON TODAY. IT'S NOT PART OF THAT REQUIREMENT, BUT EVEN STILL, THERE NEEDS TO BE A, A SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP THERE, BECAUSE IF YOU'VE GOT YOUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY REALLY, REALLY UN, IT'S JUST NOT GONNA BE GOOD FOR ANYBODY. SO I DO AGREE IF THERE'S A WAY THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE DRIVING THROUGH THAT COMMUNITY LATE AT NIGHT, NARROW STREETS, I DO BELIEVE THAT'S A SAFETY HAZARD. AND IF I WAS IN THAT COMMUNITY, I WOULD BE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. SO IF THERE'S A WAY THAT WE CAN MAKE JUST A MORE AMENABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO AND MAKE IT EASIER ON THAT COMMUNITY, I WOULD, I WOULD VERY MUCH SUPPORT THAT. THANK YOU, MS. DAVIS. MR. HAITZ, THIS IS, UH, SOMETHING THAT CAUSES A LOT OF INTERNAL STRUGGLE TO KNOW WHAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. TO SAY THAT THE CITY, UH, WAS GROSSLY INCOMPETENT IN HOW IT HANDLED THIS SITUATION WOULD BE AN UNDERSTATEMENT. I, HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME, I I, I ASKED AT LEAST SIX DIFFERENT WAYS OF EVERYBODY INVOLVED IN THIS CONVERSATION TO DEMONSTRATE TO ME THAT THE, THAT THE GAMBLING TO TAKE PLACE AT THIS FACILITY WAS WITHIN TEXAS LAW. AND OTHER THAN ASSERTING IT'S LEGAL, I ASKED FOR SPECIFICS TO DEMONSTRATE, TO SHOW ME WHERE IT'S LEGAL. AND I NEVER GOT THAT FROM ANYBODY. SO I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE AND BASED ON LIVING MY ENTIRE LIFETIME HERE IN TEXAS, THAT IT, UH, IN THE ABSENCE OF BEING SHOWN WHERE I WOULD, UH, COULD SEE EXACTLY WHERE IT SAYS IT'S LEGAL, I'M KIND LEFT CONCLUDING THAT IT'S NOT LEGAL. UM, AND SO I CAN UNDERSTAND THE CITY, UH, HAVING A, HAVING A POLICY OF REVOKING CEOS THAT, UH, THAT ALLOW THE INADVERTENTLY ALLOW FOR, UM, ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. SO HOW CAN THIS GO? IT CAN GO WHERE THEY GO AND, UH, OPEN THEIR PLACE AND DO EVERYTHING THEY WANT TO DO, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS PROBABLY IRREPARABLY HARMED. UM, THERE'S VERY SUBSTANTIAL OPPOSITION. UM, IT IS A FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE SAME TIME. THESE FOLKS PUT A LOT OF MONEY INTO A BUSINESS. UM, I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE WITH WHAT I THINK IS THE, THE, UM, IN THE ABSENCE OF A, OF A, OF A MECHANISM TO ALTER THE CEO IN A WAY THAT I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY TALK ABOUT YET. IF WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION, DECIDE THIS WAY OR THIS WAY, UM, I SUSPECT, WHICHEVER WAY WE GO, THE OTHER SIDE'S GOING TO TAKE IT TO COURT. UM, WHICH IS WHERE, AS THE CHAIRMAN SAID IT BELONGS, IT BELONGS IN COURT. UM, I WOULD THINK THE CITY WOULD BE POTENTIALLY LIABLE FOR DAMAGES [06:35:01] TO THE APPLICANTS FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY'VE PUT INTO THEIR VENTURE. UH, THAT'S A MATTER OF THE APPLICANTS DECIDING THAT THAT'S THE PATH THEY WANT TO GO DOWN. UH, SO I, SO THE WAY I'M LOOKING AT IT, THERE'S EITHER THE APPLICANTS TRYING TO GET RE RECOMPENSE FOR THEIR, FOR THEIR LOSSES, UH, OR GET SOME OTHER RESOLUTION IN A COURT PERMITTING THEM TO OPERATE AS THEY WISH TO. UH, OR A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS, UH, PROBABLY, UM, UH, VERY DEFINITELY HARMED IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS. VERY DIFFICULT DECISION. I'M OPEN TO HEARING SOME WAYS TO ADJUST THE CEO THAT MAKES THIS WORK. I, I CAN'T THINK OF ANY, BUT, UM, UH, SHORT OF LIMITING THE HOURS TO ONES THAT PROBABLY WOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE TO, UH, TO THE APPLICANTS, UH, TO HAVE GAMBLING ACTIVITIES. UM, BUT PERHAPS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SOME, UH, IDEAS IN MIND. UH, AT THIS TIME. I'LL GO AHEAD. UM, MS. BOARD ATTORNEY, DO YOU WANT ME TO PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND THEN EXPLAIN WHAT I'M GONNA PROPOSE OR TALK ABOUT WHAT THE, WHAT THE VEHICLE IS THAT I'M GONNA PROPOSE? AND THEN THE MOTION. THE MOTION. AND THEN YOU CAN HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT YOUR MOTION. OKAY, MR. CHAIR? YES. UH, CAN WE TAKE A THREE TO FIVE MINUTE RECESS? I'VE GOTTA MAKE AN IMPORTANT CALL. HOW ABOUT THAT FOR A CLIFFHANGER? I'M SORRY THAT I, I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY, EVERYBODY, BUT THAT, THAT'S, HE GETS THE DEFERENCE FOR BEING AN EIGHT YEAR MEMBER. ALRIGHT, WE WILL RECESS UNTIL 8 0 5. IS THAT ENOUGH TIME? YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AT, UH, WE'LL RECESS AT 7:58 PM UNTIL 8:05 PM ON THE 16TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2025. THANK YOU. OKAY. IT'S 8:05 PM ON THE 16TH OF SEPTEMBER. I HAVE TO KEEP LOOKING AT THE SHEET OF PAPER TO SEE WHAT DAY IT IS. UH, 8:05 PM AND 16 IS SEPTEMBER THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PENALTIES HEREBY CALL BACK TO ORDER. UM, WE ARE STILL ON, UM, BO A 2 5 0 0 0 0 0. IS THAT SIX ZEROS? 5 0 0 1? IS THAT ENOUGH? ZEROS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. UM, ALTHOUGH THIS PROCESS WAS LONG AND INVOLVED, IT, IT, IT IS A STATEMENT OF DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE BECAUSE EVERYONE IS INVOLVED AND INCLUDED. AND LIKE I SAID A MINUTE AGO, THE DEBATE AND DISCUSSION THAT YOU'LL HEAR MOMENTARILY IS ALL ON THE RECORD IN FRONT OF US. IT'S NOT, UH, IN THE BACK ROOM OR DOWN THE HALL. SO, ALRIGHT. ON THE ADVICE OF OUR BOARD ATTORNEY, SHE SUGGESTED THAT I MAKE A MOTION AND THEN EXPLAIN COMPONENTS OF MY MOTION. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING? YES. YES, THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, HOLD ON A SECOND. I GOTTA READ THE RIGHT SECTION. HAVING FULLY REVIEWED THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS AND APPEAL NUMBER BO A 25 DASH 0 0 0 0 1, DID I GET ENOUGH ZEROS, MARY? OKAY, THANK YOU. ON THE APPLICATION OF TOMMY MANN, AND HAVING EVALUATED THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY AND HEARD ALL THE TESTIMONY AND FACTS SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION, I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, UH, AND GRANT THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE, BY THE APPLICANT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. AND THIS IS CON CONSISTENT WITH THE POWERS THAT THE BOARD HAS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. UH, SECTION 51, A 4.803 SITE PLAN REVIEW. DID I DO THIS CORRECTLY? YES. DID I? YES. THERESA, ARE YOU FOLLOWING ME? 51 A DASH 4 8 0 3 SITE PLAN REVIEW. OKAY. SUBSECTION F SUBSECTION, SUBSECTION F, WHICH REFERS TO EFF REFERS TO GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OR APPROVAL. SUBSECTION THREE, WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS. AND I'M GONNA READ THIS JUST FOR THE, FOR THE RECORD. WELL, I'LL EXPLAIN THAT IN A SECOND. UH, SECTION C SUB C OF THREE, SECTION FOUR SUBSECTION G, WHICH RE WHICH REFERS TO APPROVAL SUBJECT CONDITIONS NOTED [06:40:01] THAT THE APPLICANT, AND HERE'S MY LANGUAGE, AND I WILL, UH, BE AMENABLE TO YOUR CLARIFICATION. HOW THE APPLICANT WILL CLOSE AND WILL PROHIBIT AUTOMOBILES AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND OR EGRESS OR INGRESS FROM THE PROPERTY TO BRIAR GROVE LANE CLOSING. IN OTHER WORDS, CLOSING THE VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND ENTRANCE AND EXIT TO AND FROM THE PROPERTY TO BRIAR GROVE LANE. THAT IS MY MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO REVERSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION. UH, IT IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO WHAT I SPOKE ABOUT IN A MINUTE, AND IT'S CALLED RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS. OKAY, THAT'S A NEW CONCEPT, BUT IF YOU HEARD, I ASKED THE BUILDING ASSISTANT BUILDING OFFICIAL WHETHER SHE'S AWARE OF THAT, AND THOSE ARE POWERS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. AND SHE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AS WELL AS, AND IT RELATES TO THE CO. SO WE ARE IN THE, IN THE FAIRWAY OF THE RIGHT AUTHORIZATION FOR US, WHAT THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARD SAYS. IF THE LOT HAS A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS AS DEFINED IN SECTION SO FORTH OF THE CODE, THE DIRECTOR AND WE'RE ACTING IN THE STEAD OF THE DIRECTOR RIGHT NOW, SHALL REVIEW THE SITE PLAN FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PARAGRAPH AND IS ACCEPT OTHERWISE PROVIDED, SHALL DENY THE SIDE PLAN IF THE PROPOSED ONSITE FENCING SCREENING OR BUFFERING ELEMENTS DO NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION TO ADJACENT PROPERTY. AND ADEQUATE PROTECTION CAN BE PROVIDED BY REASONABLE MODIFICATIONS IN THE PLAN. THE APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT CONDITIONS CAN BE. AND AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO DENIAL OF THE SITE PLAN, UNDER THIS SUBSECTION IS THE DIRECTOR MAY APPROVE AND WE'RE THE DIRECTOR ACTING AS THE DIRECTOR, THE SIDE PLAN SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED. IF COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS WILL ELIMINATE THAT, WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE CONSTITUTE? DENIAL GROUNDS FOR DENIAL. SO WHAT MY MOTION IS, IS TO REVERSE THE, THE REVOCATION OF THE, UH, CO AND TO PUT IN PLACE, UM, A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARD THAT FORCES THE APPLICANT TO CLOSE THAT REAR EXIT ENTRANCE THAT GOES FROM THE PROPERTY TO BRIAR GROVE LANE. THAT IS MY MOTION. QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS TO USE AN APPLICANT TO USE A PROP THAT SOMEONE GENEROUSLY PROVIDED. OOPS. IT TALKS ABOUT THE TOLLWAY, BRIAR COVE, PALM DESERT SANDESTIN, SO FORTH. THIS CUT THROUGH. AND INTERESTING ENOUGH, THIS GREEN ARROW, AND I DIDN'T CONSPIRE WITH WHOEVER BROUGHT THIS UP. I HAD THOUGHT ABOUT THIS AS WE REVIEWED THE CASE. HMM. WHAT COULD WE DO TO TRY TO PREVE WHAT COULD WE, AS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITHIN OUR POWERS OF RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS AS CODIFIED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO MITIGATE WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS PROPOSED LOCATION, GIVEN THAT THERE IS NO OTHER RECOURSE OR RELIEF IN THE CODE? IF YOU REMEMBER, RULES WE'RE LIMITED ON WHAT WE AS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN DO. WE'RE LIMITED. SO MY PROPOSAL TO THE BOARD IS THE REAR NORTHEAST ENTRANCE AND EXIT OF THIS PROPERTY HAS, I THINK IT'S A TWO LANE ENTRANCE ENTRANCE ONTO BRIAR CROW. IF THAT IS CLOSED PERMANENTLY, THAT WOULD RUN CONSISTENT WITH THE CONCURRENT WITH THE CO, WHERE NO PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC OR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC COMES THROUGH HERE. IT MINIMIZES POTENTIALLY THE TRAFFIC OUT OF THIS PROPERTY INTO BRIAR GROVE LANE INTO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE AWARE THE ZONING IN PLACE FOR THIS SWATH APPEARS MU THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY GOES TO RESIDENTIAL, HENCE THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS. THAT'S MY PROPOSAL TO THE BOARD. QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION, MS. DAVIS? I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION. I SUPPORT THE MOTION. AS I MENTIONED, THE CITY DID NOT MAKE THEIR CASE, AND I THINK THIS IS A NICE COMPROMISE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT REALLY PART OF OUR CRITERIA TO DO THIS. BUT I DO THINK IT'S A NICE COMPROMISE TO RE POTENTIALLY, HOPEFULLY REDUCE THE TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENTLY. IT IS WITHIN OUR CRITERIA. WE, WE DO HAVE THE POWERS. MM-HMM . UH, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARING, I READ TO EVERYONE THAT WE, THE BOARD MAY IMPOSE REASONABLE CONDITIONS IN ORDER, IN ITS ORDER TO BE COMPLIED WITH BY THE APPLICANT IN ORDER TO FURTHER PURPOSE THE INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER. SO VERY RESPECTFULLY, IT IS WITHIN [06:45:01] OUR LANE. I'M JUST DOING THAT FOR THE RECORD. SO SOMEONE COULDN'T NO. USE THAT AGAINST US. AND MY APOLOGIES, I WAS REFERRING TO WHAT WE WERE INITIALLY CHARGED CORRECT. WITH IN TERMS OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE CO WAS ISSUED AN ERROR. CORRECT. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. MR. NIAN? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I TOO AM GONNA BE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION. UM, IN MY EIGHT YEARS HERE ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THIS IS, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY BEEN THE HARDEST CASE OR CERTAINLY ONE OF TWO, UH, MOST DIFFICULT CASES FOR ME. UM, I WISH THAT EVERYBODY IN THE CITY HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AS ORGANIZED, UH, AS VENTRE NORTH. UM, WITH THAT SAID, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO, UM, SUGGEST, AND THAT'S ALL IT IS A SUGGESTION BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY PURVIEW OR AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE IT, BUT FOR THIS APPLICANT AND UNITED AND CHAMPIONS TO MAKE A, UM, MAYBE A INTERNAL CORPORATE POLICY OF DOING CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ALL MEMBER APPLICANTS, THAT'S SOMETHING YOU MAY WANNA CONSIDER. AND, UM, I NOTICED ON YOUR WEBSITE THE HOURS OF OPERATION CURRENTLY ARE LISTED AS 4:00 PM TO 11:00 PM I THINK I I LIKE THOSE HOURS OF OPERATION. UM, WE, WE CANNOT IMPOSE HOURS OF OPERATION ON YOU. UM, BUT TO ADDRESS THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERNS AND STUFF, UH, YOU KNOW, I IT FOR, FOR THIS MEMBER, UH, I THINK, UH, CLOSING BY MIDNIGHT WOULD BE A VERY GOOD IDEA AND NOT STAYING OPEN UNTIL 2:00 AM OR, OR LONGER. SO THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. THANK YOU MR. N DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION. MS. HAYDEN? I DON'T FEEL GOOD ABOUT THIS. EITHER WAY IT GOES. I JUST FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S JUST A SUCH A DIFFICULT, EXCUSE ME, DECISION FOR ALL OF US. AND, UM, I FEEL TERRIBLE ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT YOU'VE GONE THROUGH TO, TO SHOW UP TO THESE, THESE BOARD MEETINGS. UM, BUT I, I DO AGREE WITH MS. DAVIS THAT THE CITY DIDN'T PROVE THAT THEY ISSUED THAT CO AN ERROR. UM, AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION VERY, VERY RELUCTANTLY. UM, AND I THINK THAT THERE'S, THE CITY'S GONNA HAVE TO DO A LOT BETTER JOB, UM, REVIEWING THESE APPLICATIONS, ESPECIALLY FOR SOMETHING THAT'S AS HIGH, YOU KNOW, RISK AND, AND SUCH A DIFFICULT DECISION MAKING PROCESS LIKE THAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH. UM, SO I I, I AM VERY, VERY, VERY RELUCTANTLY, UM, SUPPORTING THIS MOTION. THANK YOU, MS. HAYDEN. MR. KOVI. IT'S A CREATIVE RECOMMENDATION. I'LL GIVE YOU THAT, DAVE. BUT I, I KNEW I KNEW NOTHING ABOUT RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS UNTIL BOTH THE PARTIES KEPT POSTPONING AND THEN IT'S LIKE, HUH, WHAT IS THAT? I, I HAVE SOME FAMILIARITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE. UM, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT RECOMMENDATION WILL AFFORD THEM THE KIND OF PROTECTION THEY'RE ENTITLED TO AS CITIZENS OF DALLAS. AND SO I WILL BE UNABLE TO SUPPORT YOUR MOTION. THANK YOU MR. KOVI. UH, A FEW OTHER COMMENTS. UM, I WOULD AGREE WITH MS. DAVIS AND MS. HAYDEN. THE CITY DID NOT WHATSOEVER MET THEIR BURDEN IN PROVING THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR. UH, INSTEAD THEY SHOWED US A SERIES OF SILOED DECISION MAKING AND MANAGEMENT. AND I COULD GO ON AND ON. I THINK MY VITRIOL DURING THE DAY SPEAKS ENOUGH TO IT. UM, UH, WE, SO I'LL LEAVE AT THAT. UM, MS. BOARD ATTORNEY. I WANNA MAKE SURE THE LANGUAGE THAT I'M USING, THAT WE ARE USING IN THIS MOTION IS SUFFICIENT AND COMPREHENSIVE ENOUGH IN ORDER TO ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. THE CODE, WHICH I'M READING FROM CITY CODE 51 A, UM, 51 A DASH 4 8 0 3 SITE PLAN REVIEW, TALKS ABOUT THIS RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS. AND IT TALKS ABOUT, UH, PROPOSED ONSITE FENCING SCREENING OR BUFFERING ELEMENTS DO NOT, THAT, THAT DO NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH. IT'S KIND OF IN THE NEGATIVE. SO YOU HAVE TO READ THE NEGATIVE AND SAY, OKAY, IF YOU WANT TO CORRECT THAT, YOU CAN APPROVE WITH SOMETHING IN THE POSITIVE. THE PROPOSED ONSITE FENCING SCREENING OR BUFFERING ELEMENTS DO NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. AND ADEQUATE PROTECTION CAN BE PROVIDED BY REASONABLE MODIFICATIONS OF THE PLAN. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU, THAT'S WHAT I'M CITING THAT PORTION, MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WHAT LANGUAGE [06:50:01] DO I NEED TO HAVE ON THE RECORD THAT SUFFICIENTLY CLOSES THAT EGRESS AND INGRESS CHAIRMAN TO, TO, TO RESIDENTIAL, EXCUSE ME, TO PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ENTRANCE AND EXIT. THAT'S THE INTENTION OF, OF MY MOTION TO THE BOARD. MR. CHAIRMAN? YES. MAY I RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST THAT TO ACHIEVE WHAT YOU'RE WANTING TO ACHIEVE? YES, SIR. WITH THAT, THAT THAT HAT THAT, THAT BE WALLED OFF WITH THAT, THAT ENTRANCE AND EXIT TO BRIAR GROVE WOULD HAVE TO BE WALLED OFF WITH A HIGH, A HIGH WALL THAT COULD NOT JUST A CURB OR SOMETHING THAT PREVENTS. SO I, I THINK YOUR POINT'S WELL TAKEN. SO, UM, SO WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THIS OPERATIVE, UM, BECAUSE WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS CREATE A BARRIER FOR EASY ACCESS FROM THIS PROPERTY OF WHICH OUR HANDS ARE TIED. THERE. THERE IS A, THERE IS A WALL, A PERIMETER WALL. IT'S TO THE BACK. IT'S IN THE BACK YES. THAT THE WALL, THAT A WALL BE OF THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE PERIMETER WALL AND COME WEST ALONG BRIT GROVE YES. TO CROSS THROUGH THAT AREA. 'CAUSE THEN IT'S A BERM. I THINK THERE'S A, THERE'S A CREEK THERE. THERE'S A, WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IN ANOTHER CASE EARLIER. YEP. THERE'S A, THERE'S A CREEK AND A BUT THE CREEK'S BEHIND IT. I THINK THE CREEK'S BEHIND IT. WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING GOING WEST ON BRIAR CROW. CORRECT. TO SO THAT IT, IT, IT ELIMINATES THAT EGRESS AND INGRESS. RIGHT? IS THAT THE RIGHT TERM? MS. HAYDEN INGRESS AND EGRESS. OKAY. I I THINK YOU NEED A PRETTY SUFFICIENTLY TALL WALL OKAY. TO ACCOUNT. ALRIGHT, I HEAR YOU. TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM PARKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND JUST WALKING. ABSOLUTELY. NO, I, I WANT ABSOLUTELY CLOSED OFF. DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT MS. HAYDEN? UM, YOU KNOW, ONE THING I I KNOW WE'LL HAVE TO DO IS, OR THE CITY WILL HAVE TO DO, IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MEETING THE, THE FIRE LANE, UM, INGRESS AND EGRESS. THERE COULD BE A CHANCE THAT, THAT, THAT DRIVE IS, IS ALSO FOR FIRE, UH, ACCESS EXITS ONTO THE, ONTO THE, TO THE FRONTAGE ROAD. THERE ARE WEIRD RULES ABOUT, ABOUT FIRE. WELL, THIS IS CONDITION ON, SO IT NEEDS TO BE, THIS APPROVAL IS CONDITIONED ON THAT BEING CLOSED OFF. OKAY. THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE NATURE OF THIS, OF MY, MY MOTION IS, IS CONDITION ON THIS BEING CLOSED OFF. SO, OKAY. UM, MY QUESTION IS THIS SUFFICIENT LANGUAGE TOO. AND, AND I'M GONNA ASK THE APPLICANT HOW IT'S, IT'S USUALLY NOT APPROPRIATE IN THE MIDDLE OF A MOTION FOR ME TO ASK INTO THE FIELD, BUT I CAN, I'M A CHAIR. I'M GONNA TAKE THE PREROGATIVE. HOW WOULD THE APPLICANT IMPLEMENT THAT IF THE, IF THE, UM, BOARD SAW FIT? WE WOULD HAVE TO CLOSE IT WITH CURBING AND THEN PROVIDE SCREENING. AND THAT SCREENING IS NOT ENOUGH. IT HAS TO BE, YEAH. WE CLOSE IT OFF WITH CURBING. SO THERE'S NO VEHICULAR ACCESS. THAT'S THE VEHICULAR. AND THEN WHAT ABOUT PEDESTRIAN AND THEN SCREEN? SAME, LIKE THERE WOULDN'T BE PEDESTRIAN PENETRATION THROUGH THAT PROPERTY LINE. WE WOULD SCREEN IT WITH A WALL OR LANDSCAPING OR A COMBINATION THEREOF. OKAY. I'M ALL OPEN FOR SUGGESTIONS. MR. KOVICH, YOU SAID A WALL. A WALL, A SOLID WALL. NO GATES, NO DOORS. NO. I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA GATES. NO, NOTHING LIKE THAT. OKAY. MS. BOARD ATTORNEY. I THINK THE SENTIMENT IS FOR A WALL. ARE WE SAYING SIX FOOT FOUR IS NOT ENOUGH? I, WELL, I I DON'T WANNA REVISIT THIS. SO I IT'S A SIDE YARD. IT'S A SIDE YARD. IT'S NOT FRONT YARD. THEY CAN DO IT BY, RIGHT. IT'S A SIDE YARD. WELL, I, WELL, IT'S NOT OH, OH, WELL THAT'S, OH, I DON'T, THAT'S A LOOPHOLE, MR. CHAIR, IF YOU MAY. IT IT'S A FRONT YARD. WE WOULD DO FOREFOOT AND THEN IF A FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS APPROVED IN THE FUTURE, WE WOULD INCREASE IT TO EIGHT. HMM. I, NO OFFENSE WE WE'LL DO IT. NO OFFENSE TO THE SET IT BACK, APPLICANT BACK. NO OFFENSE TO THE APPLICANT, BUT OUR AUTHORITIES RIGHT HERE AND NOW. OKAY. WE'LL JUST HAVE TO SET IT BACK. IF IT GOES ABOVE FOUR, YOU HAVE TO WHAT? SET IT, BRING IT OUT OF THE SETBACK SO IT'S NOT IN THE FRONT YARD. WELL, I DON'T WANT DISTURB PARKING SPACES EITHER. I IS THAT CONSIDERED YOU'RE ENJOYING THE DEMOCRACY HERE. IS THAT CONSIDERED SIDE YARD OR FRONT YARD? THE FRONT YARD FACES THE, THE FRONTAGE ROAD. THAT'S A SIDE YARD. IT'S A, IT'S A FRONT YARD. WHO SAYS IT'S A FRONT YARD? SOMEONE FROM THE STAFF NEEDS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THAT IS A FRONT YARD OR A SIDE YARD. THAT'S A SIDE YARD. IT'S THE BACK REAR CORNER [06:55:02] HERE. JUST COME UP HERE. YEAH, BUT THAT'S ONLY AT THE, IF IT EXCEEDS THE PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT, ADJACENT, WE CAN'T APPLY THIS BECAUSE IT'S NOT RESIDENTIAL BASED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. SO IT, I THINK IT'S TECHNICALLY A FRONT YARD. 'CAUSE IT FRONTS ON THE RIGHT OF WAY. WE HAVE TWO FRONT YARDS. WHAT'S THE HEIGHT OF YOUR FENCE? IN THE BACK? OH, IS THAT THING EIGHT? WE THINK IT'S EIGHT MS. BOARD ATTORNEY. I I, I AM UNCOMFORTABLE IN A SIMPLE FORD YARD FENCE. FOUR FEET FENCE. FOUR FOOT FENCE. I WANT THAT TO BE THAT, THAT PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. THERE'S NOT EVEN A THOUGHT OF ANYONE CROSSING THAT. WE JUST HAVE TO SET IT BACK. WE'LL JUST HAVE TO SET IT BACK OUT OF THE SETBACK AND WE CAN GO TO EIGHT. OKAY. IT, IT QUITE, I'M NOT A DESIGN PERSON, BUT IT, THE NATURAL THING IS IT WOULD BE EQUAL TO WHAT YOU HAVE IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. YEAH, WE'LL CONNECT IT. OKAY. EIGHT FEET. SO MY MOTION IS EIGHT FEET. IT'S SOLID TOO. DOES THAT CREATE AN ISSUE? OH GOD. SOLID. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE . MICHAEL, WHAT DO YOU THINK? WHAT'S THE WHAT YOUR, THE FENCE IN THE BACK OF YOUR PROPERTY, MR. MANN. IS IT SOLID? I'M PRETTY SURE IT'S SOLID. SORRY. IT'S SOLID. YES. YES IT IS. IT IS SOLID TODAY. IT'S SOLID. SO YES. SOLID EIGHT FOOT FENCE, SOLID EIGHT FOOT FENCES. MAKING IT SOLID AGAINST THE STREET. IS IT A PROBLEM MAKING IT SOLID AGAINST THE STREET THERE? ANY VISIBILITY WEIRDNESS THERE? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION BECAUSE YOU COULD DO, YOU COULD DO LIKE BRICK. MM. LET'S NOT, LET'S, LET'S NOT MAKE THIS TOO COMPLICATED. I THINK JUST EIGHT FOOT. YES. ALRIGHT, SO, UH, WHAT, WHAT I'M GONNA, WHAT I'M GONNA WHAT MY MOTION IS JUST AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE THAT COMES, UH, PARALLEL TO BRIAR GROVE, 90 DEGREE PERPENDICULAR TO THE BACKYARD. TO THE BACKYARD FENCE. MR. CHAIRMAN? YES. I'VE HAD A QUESTION FROM A MEMBER OF THE GALLERY. WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO RELAY THAT TO YOU? SURE. UH, THEY WANTED TO KNOW HOW FAR DOWN BRIAR GROVE THE FENCE WOULD GO. UM, THE INTENTION OF THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO CLOSE OFF THE ENTRANCE EXIT. WHAT'S THE LEGAL TERM? IT'S GOT EGRESSING INGRESS. THAT, THAT DRIVE, THAT'S THE INTENTION IS TO GO FROM THE CORNER ALL THE WAY TO CLOSE THAT OFF. UM, NOT BE ODD. IF I REMEMBER A PICTURE SOMEWHERE, THERE'S A MOUND. I'M NOT, I'M, I GOTTA BELIEVE THE MOUND IS SUFFICIENT TO, TO PROHIBIT, UH, PEDESTRIAN CLIMBING. IF PEOPLE ARE DOING THAT, WE'VE GOT BIGGER PROBLEMS. ALL THEY WANT DO IS CLOSE. YEAH. IT WON'T BE, IT WON'T BE. NO, IT WON'T BE BECAUSE IT'S, THERE'S NO TRIANGLE THERE. IT'S, WE'RE CLOSING IT OFF. NO. OH NO, IT'S NOT THAT CLOSE ENOUGH. THE FENCE. IT'S NOT CLOSE ENOUGH. IT'S NOT CLOSE ENOUGH. OKAY. SO WE GOT MULTIPLE NEGOTIATIONS GOING ON HERE. WE'RE FINE WITH IT. WE'LL SET IT BACK. WE'LL DO EIGHT. WE'LL SET IT BACK. WELL YEAH, I KNOW. BUT, BUT THEN, BUT THEN THE FENCE IS THEY CAN'T GET IN, BUT WE DON'T CARE. THE ENTRANCE RIGHT THERE. IT'S JUST CLOSING OFF THE ENTRANCE THERE AT THE BACK CORNER. TAKE IT INTO NEW MEXICO, THE BIG MOUNTAIN. WHATEVER YOU NEED, WE'LL TAKE IT. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO, OKAY. MISS, UM, CITY ATTORNEY, TELL ME WHAT YOUR, YOUR YOUR YES SIR. YOUR ING WITH SOMEONE FROM THE PUBLIC. THE, ANOTHER GENTLEMAN WAS ASKING AND SHOWING, UH, A PHOTO STATING THAT THE ONLY WAY TO REALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM WAS TO TAKE THE WALL ALL THE WAY TO THE ACCESS ROAD, TO THE TOLLWAY. AND APPARENTLY MR. MANN HAS, HAS, UH, CHATTED WITH THIS CLIENT AND THEY'RE OKAY WITH THAT. OH, WELL, CAN'T WAIT. WE REALLY ARE OKAY. TRYING TO BE RESPONSIVE. YES. WE'LL TAKE IT ALL THE WAY BARS. THEY'LL LET US TILL WE HIT A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. OKAY. CORRECT. SO HOLD THAT THOUGHT RIGHT THERE. SO HOW DO WE AVOID THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE? I'M JUST GOING TO TAKE A STAB AT THIS CONDITION. OKAY. IT GOES INTO, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION, THE APPLICANT [07:00:01] MUST CLOSE VEHICULAR ACCESS TO AND FROM THE PROPERTY ALONG BRIAR GROVE LANE AND PROHIBIT IN INGRESS AND EGRESS ALONG BRIAR GROVE, BRIAR GROVE LANE AND PROHIBIT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO AND FROM THE PROPERTY ALONG BRIAR GROVE LANE AND PROVIDE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALONG THE LENGTH OF BRIAR BRIAR GROVE LANE, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. SO IF IT IS IN THE VISIBLY TRIANGLE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THAT AND STAY OUT OF THAT AND FIRE LANE IN ALL OF, ALL OF THAT. OKAY. UM, HOW DOES THIS SOUND GUYS? IT SOUNDS GOOD. OKAY. I, SO I'M ASKING FOR CHANGING MY MOTION. WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT? YES. OKAY. SO THE MOTION HAS BEEN AMENDED TO THAT. ALRIGHT. IS THE APPLICANT, IS THE APPLICANT UNDERSTAND THE SPIRIT IN THE INTENTION OF WHAT THE BOARD IS CONSIDERING? WE DO. OKAY. UM, I COULD ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY AS WELL, BUT I I DON'T THINK YOU WANNA AGREE TO ANYTHING WE'RE DOING 'CAUSE WE'RE REVERSING YOU, BUT THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. ARE WE SAYING CHAIRMAN, IT'S A SOLID OR WE'RE JUST SAYING AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE? WE'RE JUST SAYING AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. OKAY. MR. CHAIRMAN? YES. UM, WILL THERE BE A REQUIREMENT THAT THE PLANS FOR THAT BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL BEFOREHAND? WHAT DO, HOW, HOW WILL THAT WORK? ASK THE QUESTION ABOUT PLANS BEING SUBMITTED. IF YOU SAY, IF YOU SAY APPLICABLE CODE, I WOULD ASSUME THAT MEANS THAT THEY HAVE TO PERMIT THE FENCE. IS THAT RIGHT? OH YEAH, WE SO WOULD YOU YES, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PERMIT THE FENCE. SO DO WE NEED TO PAY, PUT THE WORD ANY SORT OF REFERENCE TO PERMITTING IN? WELL, WE'RE ALSO, WE'RE SAYING IT'S SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAW. SO THAT WOULD ENCOMPASS GETTING A PERMIT FOR THEIR FENCE. AND DO YOU WANNA ADD THE, DO YOU WANT TO CONDITION THE FENCE, THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE TO BE FIVE FOOT, FIVE FEET BEHIND THE PROPERTY LINE? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE A WELL NO. 'CAUSE THEY'RE NOT REQUIRING SOLID THIS, THEY GOT COMPLIANCE FOR LAW. OKAY. IF WE HAVE TO TALK ON THE RECORD, YOU DO TOO. SO I GET YOUR FEEDBACK GUYS. WE'RE REQUIRING IT. WE, WE WILL MEET THE SETBACK. I THINK THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS COMPLY WITH THE LAW WOULD REQUIRE US TO MEET THE SETBACK TO HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. IT'S A 15 FOOT SETBACK IN MU ONE. WE'LL PULL IT BACK. WE'RE CUTTING OFF THE ACCESS. WE DON'T NEED THE DRIVEWAY THROAT ANYMORE. BUT, BUT MY INTENTION IS NOT TO REMOVE YOUR PARKING SPACES BECAUSE I AM CONCERNED ABOUT PARKING BEING PUSHED OUTSIDE OF YOUR PROPERTY. SO I DON'T WANNA COMPROMISE ANY PARKING SPACES. 'CAUSE THAT'S ANOTHER, THAT'S ANOTHER POTENTIAL NEGATIVE. SO I, I DON'T WANNA LOSE ANY OF YOUR PARKING SPACES. YOU NEED TO, IF YOU'RE GONNA OPERATE A BUSINESS, YOU NEED TO HAVE SUFFICIENT PARKING CONSISTENT WITH WHAT MU ONE ZONING REQUIRES. RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT'S, WE'RE WAY OVER. ARE WE WE'RE WAY OVER CODE MINIMUM. I JUST, I WANNA MAKE SURE WE LOSE A FEW SPACES. IT'S OKAY. UH, I JUST, YEAH, I DON'T THINK IT HAS TO BE. ALRIGHT. SO I NEED TO ASK THE STAFF AGAIN. SO BOARD, WE'VE AGREED ON EIGHT FEET. WE'VE AGREED ON THE WHOLE LENGTH, BUT NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE VISIT BEING ON TRIANGLE AT THE FRONTAGE ROAD IN BRIAR GROVE LANE. UH, WE'VE NOT SAID IT HAS TO BE SOLID. WE JUST SAID AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. CORRECT. ALL THE WAY UP. THAT SHOULD STOP VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ALL ALONG BRIAR GROVE. BRIAR GROVE LANE. CORRECT. ARE WE SAYING ABOUT THE LOCATION THEREOF AND, AND THE APPLICABLE TO ALL CITY CODES, LOCAL CODES, ET CETERA, IMPLIES THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT AND MAKE SURE THAT YES, WHAT THEY BUILD IS IN COMPLIANCE. THAT IT'S WITHIN THIS, YOU KNOW, IT'S PASSED THE SETBACK. IT IT IF IT NEEDS A HIGH VARIANCE WHATEVER. YES. OKAY. OKAY. MR. KOVI, UM, THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. I I THINK IT SHOULD BE A PART OF IT. I THINK, I THINK I DON'T THINK IT'S SUFFICIENT TO JUST HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE OF ANY TYPE. I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE ARCHITECTURALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE PERIMETER WALL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS A BRICK WALL. AND BY SAYING, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK YOU WANT CHAIN LINK, CHAIN LINK FENCES THERE. HE'S RIGHT ABOUT THAT. RIGHT. I MEAN, BUT BY, BY SAYING IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES, ET CETERA. MR. MANN, I THINK THE DESIRE IS THAT THE FENCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FENCE THAT YOU HAVE ELSEWHERE. YEAH. WE'LL DO A SOLID FENCE AND IT'S GONNA MATCH WHAT WE HAVE [07:05:01] THERE YOU GO IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. YEAH. SOLID FENCE THAT WILL MATCH IT. SOLID. I THINK YOU CAN REGULATE SOLIDS. SOLID FENCE. IT'LL BE MASONRY. I DON'T THINK SHE'S GONNA LET YOU SAVE MASONRY. LET, IT'S NOT A BUILDING. WELL LET HER, SHE'S GOT THE KEYBOARD RIGHT NOW. YEAH, BUT IT WILL BE SOLID, CONSISTENT WITH THE, THE FENCE THAT'S ALREADY ON THE PROPERTY. YES. ALRIGHT. WE'LL GIVE IT A SECOND. IS THAT, THAT'S SUFFICIENT. I'LL STILL BE VOTING IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION. I DO, BUT THAT'S OKAY. WE STILL LIKE YOUR CONTRIBUTION. WE, WE LIKE YOUR CONTRIBUTION. YOU'RE A TAIL GUNNER. VERY IMPORTANT ROLE TAIL GUNNER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE GET THIS AS CORRECT AS POSSIBLE. OH, I SHOULD ASK THE BOARD WHILE THE, WE'RE WAITING ON THIS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER CONDITIONS WE WANNA PUT ON HERE BESIDES THE, WHAT'S ALREADY ON THE CO? BECAUSE WHAT'S ON THE CO WILL ROLL OVER SINCE WE, WE REVERSE THE REVOCATION. SO THAT MEANS THE REVOCATION DISAPPEARS, KIND OF LIKE THE, THE DISTRICT COURT'S OPINION DISAPPEARS. UM, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE WANNA PUT IN? THAT'S CORRECT. IT HAS TO BE WITHIN OUR PURVIEW. I HEARD YOU. IT'S ON THE RECORD. MR. NEARING. I'LL READ THE CONDITION IN ITS ENTIRETY AGAIN. APPLICANT MUST CLOSE VEHICULAR ACCESS TO AND FROM THE PROPERTY ALONG BRIAR GROVE LANE AND PROHIBIT INGRESS AND EGRESS ALONG BRIAR BRIAR GROVE LANE AND PROHIBIT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO AND FROM THE PROPERTY ALONG BRIAR GROVE LANE AND PROVIDE AN EIGHT FOOT, EIGHT FOOT SOLID FENCE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING FENCE ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF BRIAR GROVE LANE. SUBJECT TO CLIENTS WITH ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL AND STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. UH, THE EXISTING FENCE THAT IS ON THE PROPERTY EXISTING WITH THE EXISTING FENCE. YEAH. THAT IS ON CONSISTENT WITH THE FENCE. THAT'S THE PROPERTY. I DO NOT THINK THAT'S AN UNREASONABLE CONDITION. I'M SPEAKING TO THE APPLICANT NOW. I DON'T THINK IT IS. I AGREE. I I THINK IT'S VERY REASONABLE AND I THINK IT'S, IT'S SMART OF YOU TO HAVE IT GO ALL THE WAY TO THE CORNER. UM, AND A FOOT, THE WHOLE DEAL. I THINK THAT'S JUST SMART. UM, IT'S NOT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW. THOSE FROM THE PUBLIC AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD HERE. IT'S, THE CODE DOESN'T ALLOW US TOOLS OTHER THAN THIS RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS. THAT'S IT. THAT'S THE ONLY TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX. SO, UM, SO THAT BEING THE CASE, DO YOU GOT THE LANGUAGE ALRIGHT, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS AS, AS SUCH, UH, LET ME ASK A, A QUESTION. SO WHAT HAPPENS IF FOR SOME REASON THE APPLICANT DOESN'T PUT THE FENCE IN PLACE OR THAT'S CONDITIONED ON THE CO RIGHT. THE FE THIS APP, THIS CONDITION ACTIVATES OR PROHIBITS THE CO. CORRECT. IF THEY DON'T HAVE THIS FENCE FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE CO IS NOT ISSUED CONDITION OF GO AHEAD AND SAY THAT IT'S A CONDITION OF WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT YOU ARE APPROVING TODAY. YEAH, BECAUSE I'M ONLY AGREEING TO THIS IN THIS TOTALITY. YES. SO IF THE FENCE DOESN'T GO UP CONSISTENT, WHAT WE'VE AGREED ON, THE CO DOESN'T HAPPEN. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. THAT BEING THE CASE, THE BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL THE VOTE. MS. HAYDEN. I, MS. DAVIS. AYE. MR. N AYE. MR. OVITZ NAY. MR. CHAIRMAN? AYE. MOTION TO REVERSE PASSES FOUR TO ONE IN THE MATTER OF BOA TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 0 0 1. THE BOARD ON A VOTE OF FOUR TO ONE REVERSES THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AND GRANTS THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT SUBJECT TO THE, THE, UM, PROVISIONS AS SPECIFIED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. [07:10:04] THANK YOU. OH, I NEED YOUR OR JUST TO EMAIL ME. OKAY. MY CARD. YOU CLEAR THE ROOM. UH, WE HAVE TWO REMAINING CASES ON THE DOCKET. UM, , YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE BEAUTIES IS THE CHAIR REPRESENTS THE, THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY. SO, UH, WHAT IS IT? ? I I'M GONNA PROPOSE THAT WE HOLD THESE OVER UNTIL, UH, LET'S SEE, WHERE ARE WE? SEPTEMBER TILL THE OCTOBER DATE. OCTOBER 21. OCTOBER 21ST. OKAY. IT'S 10 MORE MINUTES. OKAY. IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT YOU WANNA DO? REALLY? WELL, THERE'S THREE OF US. YEAH. OH, WE'RE IN CHARGE. OKAY. WELL, YOU KNOW, I'M READY TO HEAR THE CASES. UH, BUT I THINK MY, MY BOARD HAS DESERTED ME. . I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO, UH, THE CHAIR WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I'D LIKE TO AND, UH, 2 5 0 0 0 0 3 8. DO, DO I DO A MOTION FOR, CAN I DO IT FOR BOTH OR FOR EACH ONE? UH, OH, HERE. YEAH. 0 3 8. OKAY. DOWN HERE? YEAH. THREE EIGHT HAS FOUR. YOU JUST DO IT ONCE. HANG ON. I NEED TO FIND THE RIGHT SHEET. DO YOU HAVE YOURS? YEAH. OKAY. YOU, YOU MAKE IT. I'LL SECOND. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO OA 2 5 0 0 0 0 3 8 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL OCTOBER 21ST, 2025. SECOND IT'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECOND TO HOLD OVER A BO OA TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 3 8 UNTIL OCTOBER 21ST, 2025. DISCUSSION IN THE MOTION. SEEING NO DISCUSSION. IT'S LATE. GO TO A VOTE. BOARD SECRETARY WILL CALL A VOTE. MR. OVITZ. AYE. MR. N AYE. MS. DAVIS? AYE. MS. HAYDEN AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN NAY MOTION, MOTION TO VOTE NOW I'LL, I'LL REVERSE MY, I'LL REVERSE MINE TO, YAY. I'LL GO ON THE RECORD OF, OF AYE. THE BOARD UH, UH, VOTED FIVE TO ZERO TO HOLD OVER UNTIL, UH, OCTOBER 21ST, 2005. 25. NO, THEY'VE GOT YES. ALL FOUR GO. THE NEXT ONE IS 2 5 0 0 0 0 4 6. I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL NUMBER BO A 2 5 0 0 0 4 6 HOLD THIS MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT UNTIL OCTOBER 21ST, 2025. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED IN. SECONDED TO HOLD OVER BO OA TWO FIVE DASH 0 0 0 0 4 6 UNTIL OCTOBER 21ST, 2025. DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION. UH, CALL THE ROLL MR. OVITZ. AYE. MR. N LAST VOTE. AYE. OOH. THERE HE GOES. THAT'S IT. . MS. DAVIS. AYE. MS. HAYDEN? AYE. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD NORMALLY VOTE NO 'CAUSE I'M READY TO HEAR HIM. BUT A JUST GONNA GET ALONG. I'M GONNA GO ALONG TO GET ALONG. I'LL SAY, AYE. MOTION TO HOLD. PASSES. HOLD OVER. ALL RIGHT. IT IS 8 8 40 2:00 PM ON THE 16TH OF SEPTEMBER. THAT'S THE LIFESTYLE ON OUR AGENDA. UH, BOARD MEMBERS, OUR HEARING, OUR HEARING NEXT MONTH IS ON THE 21ST. PROBABLY, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'LL BE 10 OR 10 30 BRIEFING, BUT WE'RE GONNA BE AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION AT THE, IN THE PARK BOARD ROOM BECAUSE WE'VE RUN OUT OF LOCATIONS IN THE PLACE. IS THAT SIXTH FLOOR, MARY? YES. SIXTH FLOOR. SO IT'S SIX FLOOR FN ON THE GREEN SITE. YEAH. SO PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF WHETHER A CHANGE IT TOOK ME FOUR. IT JUST IS. OKAY. IT'S 8:42 PM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A I CALL FOR A MOTION TO ADJOURN. SO MOVED. SO MOVED. MOVED. AYE, SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. A AYE. THE BOARD OF, UH, THE MOTION CARRIES THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PANEL A IS ADJOURNED AT 8:42 PM THANK YOU. I WILL. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.