Mar 30, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting

[00:00:04]

34. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND BRING THIS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.

[CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM]

OKAY. GOING TO ITEM ONE, LISA OR I'M SORRY, WE NEED TO TAKE A CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING THE

[ITEM 1: Consider and take appropriate action regarding the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes from March 4, 2026.]

COMMISSIONERS I NEED A VOTE ON THAT. MR. CHAIRPERSON, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2026, AS WRITTEN. OKAY, I'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE.

I NEED A SECOND. I'LL SECOND. OKAY. I'VE GOT A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER SAMER MOHAMED AND A SECOND FROM JOHN LANIER.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY. WE'RE.

SORRY. OKAY. NOW WE'RE GOING TO BE MOVING INTO A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.

AND WHEN THE COMMISSION GOES INTO PUBLIC HEARING, THE COMMISSIONERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS OR RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTIONS OR COMMENT DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS WILL RESERVE ALL QUESTIONS UNTIL AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AND THE DISCUSSION ITEM IS OPEN. OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO ITEM TWO PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE'RE GOING TO OPEN IT UP AT 5:35.

[ITEM 2: ZC-26-0001 – Public hearing, discussion, and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding an ordinance rezoning approximately 1.067-acre tract of land in the Proctor Addition, in the J. Proctor Survey, Abstract Number 683, in the City of Decatur, Wise County, Texas, from Light Industrial (LI) to Single-Family (SF-2) Zoning District, also known as 600 E US Hwy 380 Business. (Clifford Brannon, Property Owner)]

THIS IS A ZONE CHANGE PETITION FOR 600 EAST U.S.

HIGHWAY 380 BUSINESS. IT'S A LITTLE OVER AN ACRE AND IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

THE PROPERTY OWNER IS PROPOSING TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DEVELOP IT FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

AND SO THE REZONING IS REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED USE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE LIGHT GRAY IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

TO THE EAST OF THAT IS ALL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTY SF2.

SO THE TO THE NORTH OF IT IS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AND TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE WEST IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

SO THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT WERE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL AT THE MARCH 23RD MEETING.

AND AGAIN THE PROPOSED ZONING IS SINGLE FAMILY SF 2.

IT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE.

THE FUTURE LAND USE FOR ALL THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IS COMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH THE PRIMARY LAND USE FOR COMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD, AS YOU CAN SEE, IS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED PATIO HOMES, TOWNHOMES OR DUPLEXES.

SECONDARY LAND USES INCLUDE CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL USES, PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND SMALL RETAIL OR COMMERCIAL.

SO NO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED.

SO WE HAVE NOTIFIED 23 PROPERTY OWNERS VIA THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE PROPERTY WAS ALSO POSTED.

PER THE NEW STATE STATUTE REQUIREMENTS FOR ANY TYPE OF ZONE CHANGE, IT DOES HAVE TO BE POSTED.

SO WE DID RECEIVE RESPONSES FROM THREE PROPERTY OWNERS.

YOU'LL SEE THE THREE IN THE RED. THAT IS A 17.35%.

AND THE REASON CITED WAS NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

SO THIS IS A DOWN ZONING NOT AN UP ZONING. SO WE'RE TAKING THE INTENSITY FROM INDUSTRIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DOWN TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

SO IT'S A LESS INTENSIVE USE. LATE THIS AFTERNOON, WE RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH, WHICH THEIR PROPERTY IS ZONED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL.

WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN WRITING, BUT OUR ASSISTANT PLANNER SPOKE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME THIS AFTERNOON, AND THEY WERE NEUTRAL TO THE REQUEST. THEY WERE JUST WANTING TO ASK WHAT THE REQUEST WAS, MAKE SURE IT WAS NOT GOING TO AFFECT THEIR PROPERTY.

SO BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS ZONING CHANGE.

IT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

I'M HERE WITH ANY QUESTIONS. FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM.

IF YOU WOULD, SIR, PLEASE COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE. NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.

[00:05:05]

OKAY. POSSIBLE. MA'AM. OKAY. IT'S SMALLER THAN YOUR PACKAGE. WON'T TAKE UP MUCH ROOM. THANK YOU, SIR.

THANK YOU KEVIN.

THANK YOU.

I CAN SHARE. I CAN SHARE WITH JOHN IF YOU. YEAH, YEAH, I'LL GIVE YOU MINE.

OKAY. SURE. ABSOLUTELY. PART OF IT IS WHAT I SENT VIA EMAIL, WHICH IS THE ZONING LETTER OR ZONING NOTICE LETTER AND OUR OPPOSITION TO IT, OUR OPPOSITION STATEMENT AND A COPY OF THE WISE COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT MAP RELATED TO OUR PROPERTY. I AM ONE OF THE OWNERS OF EAGLE CLAW CAPITAL LLC, ALONG WITH JEFF SICKING.

HE'S NOT HERE THIS EVENING. BUT ALSO JOINING ME TONIGHT IS MARK MORAN, WHO'S THE OWNER OF GREENWOOD EXPLORATION.

WE JOINTLY OWN THE THREE PROPERTIES IN RED THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE MAP THERE LOOKING AT THE SAME THING.

OKAY. WE JOINTLY OWN THOSE THREE PROPERTIES. IN THE PACKET OF INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE.

THOSE ARE SHOWN ON THE WISE COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT MAP ON THE LAST PAGE.

SO WE OWN LOTS 756441, 756444 AND 756443. CURRENTLY, THE TWO LOTS TO THE WEST OF THE PROPOSED LOT FOR REZONING ARE ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND THE ONE TO THE EAST THERE ON THE CORNER OF NEWARK STREET IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS ZONING CHANGE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY.

FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. ONE IS WE THINK THE REQUESTED ZONING CHANGES WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT THOSE TWO LOTS TO THE WEST AND MAY EVENTUALLY NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY THERE ON THE CORNER BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE TO SINGLE FAMILY VALUE OR SINGLE FAMILY ZONING, WHICH WE THINK ULTIMATELY THIS PROPERTY ALONG THIS THOROUGHFARE IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING. AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LACK OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE PROPERTY ON MAJOR THOROUGHFARES IN THE CITY OF DECATUR. WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN APPROACHED BY A COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USER WITH RESPECT TO PURCHASING OUR PROPERTY.

PART OF IT HINGED UPON BEING ABLE TO PURCHASE MR. BRANNON'S PROPERTY, AND APPARENTLY HE WASN'T WILLING TO SELL TO THEM.

SO THAT DEAL DIDN'T GO THROUGH. BUT WE THINK THAT'S A MORE CONSISTENT USE ALONG THIS THOROUGHFARE THAN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME.

THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING, AS WAS NOTED, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN BECAUSE THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN DOES ALLOW FOR OR THIS AREA IT UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

I MAY HAVE SAID THE THIRD PLAN FARE THE PLAN THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS THE PLACE TYPE COMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH ALLOWS FOR SMALL AMOUNTS OF NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL IN LOCATIONS CENTRAL TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE.

SO WITH THAT PLACE TYPE FOR THESE FOUR TRACTS OF LAND THAT ARE, THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS ZONING CHANGE AND OUR OPPOSITION, KEEPING IT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND ALSO, AS YOU'LL NOTE ON THE MAP THAT YOU CAN SEE THERE

[00:10:01]

AND YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THIS LOT OVERLAPS ON TOP OF THE TAX PARCEL THAT WE'VE BEEN PAYING TAXES ON SINCE 2014, THE ONE THAT'S IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST OF THE CROSS-HATCHED AREA.

WE'RE NOT SURE THAT MR. BRANNON OWNS THE PROPERTY THAT ENCROACHES ON OUR TAX PARCEL.

IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE, WELL, THE PAGE TWO OF THE NOTICE IS ACTUALLY WHAT'S SHOWN UP THERE.

BUT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET THERE. I GAVE YOU A COPY OF THE DEED FOR THE 1999 CONVEYANCE TO MR. BRANNON, AND THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION JUST SAYS A LOT OUT OF BLOCK 52 AND PROCTOR ADDITION.

AND THEN IT SAYS IT'S 1.205 ACRES AND THEN IT SAYS IT'S 210 BY 150.

SO THAT LEADS YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A RECTANGULAR STRIP THERE.

IT DOESN'T TELL YOU WHICH DIRECTION IS 150, WHICH ONE WHICH DIRECTION IS 210.

BUT IT'S NOT A, IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT A RECTANGULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HE'S SHOWING ON HIS PLAT THAT HE'S FILED, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION THAT'S IN THE DEED WHEN HE ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY.

AND, SO THEREFORE, WE FEEL THERE EXISTS A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT MR. BRANNON OWNS THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT HE'S SEEKING REZONING ON THAT ENCROACHES UPON OUR TAX PARCEL THERE THAT'S IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE ZONE PROPERTY.

SO FOR THOSE REASONS, WE ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THE ZONING REQUEST.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO STAFF WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION.

SO NONE OF THE PROPERTIES AROUND THERE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN RED AND MR. BRANNON'S PROPERTY HAVE EVER BEEN PLATTED. SO LINES THAT ARE DRAWN ON WISE CAD ARE ARBITRARY LINES.

THEY DON'T HAVE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SURVEY UNTIL THOSE PROPERTIES ARE PLATTED.

SO WISE CAD ACTUALLY HAS A DISCLAIMER ON THEIR WEBSITE, WHICH STATES THE PRODUCT IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT SUITABLE FOR LEGAL, ENGINEERING OR SURVEYING PURPOSES.

IT DOES NOT REPRESENT AN ON THE GROUND SURVEY AND SHOWS ONLY THE APPROXIMATE RELATIVE LOCATION OF PROPERTY BOUNDARIES AND OTHER FEATURES.

THE USER OF THIS APPLICATION ACKNOWLEDGES AND ACCEPTS LIMITATIONS.

THE OWNERSHIP INFORMATION AND GIS DATA IS IN A CONSTANT STATE OF MAINTENANCE, CORRECTION AND UPDATE.

THE DATA IS SHOWN BY THE RESPECTIVE COMPANY OR AGENCY AND CANNOT BE USED WITHOUT CONSENT.

FOR THE BEST VIEWING EXPERIENCE, BROWSER POP UPS SHOULD BE DISABLED AND IT HAS A PLACE FOR WHOEVER USES WCAD TO AGREE TO THIS.

WE HAVE THE DEED INFORMATION AND THE SURVEY AND PLAT FROM A LICENSED SURVEYOR AND THE CLOSURE REPORT MEANING THE PROPERTY LINES AND THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY LINES, HOW FAR IT RUNS NORTH, HOW FAR IT RUNS EAST, SOUTH HAS BEEN CERTIFIED AND VERIFIED THAT THE CLOSURE REPORT CLOSES.

SO THIS IS THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY. IT HAS BEEN THE CLOSURE REPORT'S BEEN RUN NUMEROUS TIMES ON THIS BY OUR CITY STAFF'S GIS ANALYST. SO IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY OR IF THERE IS A DISPUTE THAT ONE SURVEYOR SAYS DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER SURVEYOR, THEN THAT IS A CIVIL MATTER BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE TWO SURVEYORS.

IT IS NOT A CITY MATTER. THANK YOU, MISS HANNON.

THE PLAT'S BEEN APPROVED BY COUNCIL. DO YOU ALL WANT TO SEE A COPY OF THE PLAT? BECAUSE IT'S, YOU DO MASON? MASON DOES. OKAY.

WOODRUFF WANTS TO SEE A COPY OF THE PLAY. YOU DON'T HAVE ONE.

YOU CAN JUST. WELL, NO, I DON'T HAVE ONE. I CAN HAND YOU.

NO, SIR. WE'RE STILL IN A PUBLIC HEARING, ARE WE NOT? OKAY, SO NO QUESTIONS. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM?

[00:15:03]

IT IS NOW 5:47. COMMISSIONERS. SPECIFICALLY SAID 17 POINT SOMETHING PERCENT.

YES, SIR. I ASSUME YOU'RE SAYING IT BECAUSE THAT NUMBER MEANS SOMETHING.

SO IF IT'S OVER 20% OF AN OPPOSITION, THEN WE HAVE TO HAVE AN APPROVAL OR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF 75%. IS THAT CORRECT, MISS [INAUDIBLE]? IS IT? IT IS THE GOVERNING BODY. SO YOU ARE FREE TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT MEETING THAT 75% THRESHOLD.

BUT AT CITY COUNCIL, ONCE IT'S 20%, THERE IS A 75% OF THE GOVERNING BODY VOTE THRESHOLD.

THE SUPERMAJORITY. MS. HANNON ONE MORE QUESTION.

SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, JUST SO I'M CLEAR, WHAT I'M SEEING, WHICH IS SOMEWHAT OF A, YOU KNOW, LET'S JUST CALL IT A RECTANGLE/TRIANGLE WITH THE STRIPE LINES THAT IS BASED ON THE SURVEY, THE ACCURATE DIMENSIONS AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY.

THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. AND MY QUESTION IS WHAT WAS THE SURVEY BASED ON? BECAUSE THE LEGAL AS A FORMER REAL ESTATE PRACTITIONER OF 36 YEARS, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE DEED IS INADEQUATE.

SO THERE MAY BE IT MAY BE CURED BY OTHER DATA SOMEPLACE, BUT.

SO WHAT DID THE SURVEYOR BASE HIS CONCLUSIONS ON? THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE. SO WE HAVE AGAIN, THE PLAT HAS BEEN APPROVED, WHICH HAD ALL THE INFORMATION.

AND APPROVED A REPLAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THIS BODY.

IT WAS A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT WAS APPROVED BY THIS BODY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AND THEN APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL LAST MONDAY AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

SO ALL THAT INFORMATION THAT WAS ON THE PLAT AND ON THE SURVEY HAD ALL THE BACKUP DOCUMENTATION.

WE HAVE ALL THE DEEDS OF RECORD FROM MR. BRANNON'S PROPERTY THAT THE SURVEYOR HAS PROVIDED US.

THE CLOSURE REPORT IS WHAT WE LOOK AT. FOR STAFF, TECHNICAL, OUR GIS ANALYST, AND ALSO.

I UNDERSTAND THE TECHNICAL. WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND WE ARE BASING THAT OFF OF THE PLAT THAT HAS ALL THE MEASUREMENTS, I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. THE POINT I'M TRYING TO BACK INTO THEN IS AT THE TIME THE PLAT WAS SUBMITTED IN PRELIMINARY AND FINAL FORM.

NO OPPOSITION WAS RAISED BY ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS AS TO THE INADEQUACY OR INACCURACY OF THAT PLAT.

THAT IS CORRECT. HOWEVER, THAT DOES NOT, OF COURSE, MEAN THAT THEY CANNOT.

IF THEY THINK THAT THE BOUNDARIES ARE INACCURATELY STATED, THAT THEY CANNOT SEEK A CIVIL REMEDY.

THAT IS CORRECT. YOU ARE CORRECT. NOW KEEP IN MIND FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLATS, NO NOTIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED BY THE STATE STATUTE.

SO THEY WERE ON A THEY WERE ON THE AGENDA. THEY DID NOT HAVE TO BE NOTIFIED FOR THOSE TWO APPLICATIONS.

COMMISSIONERS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY THROUGH THE STATE HAS BEEN.

MR. BRANNON HAS BEEN WORKING WITH TXDOT ON THAT.

OKAY. AND I HAVE SPOKEN WITH TXDOT ALSO. THEY ARE WORKING WITH THAT AND HAVE SAID THAT THEY WOULD GIVE HIM ACCESS.

OKAY. YOU AND CORRECT ME IF I'M MISTAKEN. DID YOU SAY THAT THIS USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MASTER PLAN? THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS USE. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? YES. IT'S THE UNDERLYING FUTURE LAND USE IS COMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH ALLOWS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED PATIO HOMES, TOWNHOMES, DUPLEXES AS A PRIMARY LAND USE.

DOES IT ALSO ALLOW FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. DIDN'T SAY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

IT SAYS CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL USES PARKS AND OPEN SPACE, SMALL RETAIL, COMMERCIAL.

OKAY. YES, SIR. YES, SIR. ABSOLUTELY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. HEARING NONE, THEN I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF ZC 260001 TO THE CITY COUNCIL. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I DON'T SEE ENOUGH GROUNDS HERE FOR US TO DENY THIS REQUEST. OBVIOUSLY, IF A TITLE SUIT IS INITIATED, THAT WOULD PUT THE WHOLE THING ON HOLD BETWEEN THE PARTIES BEFORE ANYTHING COULD BE DONE, AND THAT MIGHT HAVE TO COME BACK TO US FOR SOME OTHER REASON.

BUT FOR THAT REASON, I WOULD HAVE TO OFFER A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST IN LINE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY. I'VE GOT A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

[00:20:02]

OKAY, I'VE GOT A SECOND. I'VE GOT A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER MASON WOODRUFF AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SAMER MOHAMED, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY. GOING TO ITEM THREE.

[ITEM 3: SUP-26-0001. Public hearing, discussion, and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding an ordinance to amend Appendix “B,” “Zoning” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Decatur, to grant a Specific Use Permit (SUP) to allow a convenience store with gasoline sales, in a Restricted Business (C-1) Zoning District, on an approximate 0.55-acre tract of land being legally described as Lot 15R, Block 1, Lipsey Addition, City of Decatur, Wise County, Texas, also known as 2806 S FM 51. (Krishna Raj Joshi, Property Owner) ]

I CAN'T SEE. 5:43. 5:53. 5:53 I'M SORRY. 5:53 LISA.

YES, SIR. LISA HANNON PLANNING DIRECTOR. WE'LL ENTER OUR STAFF REPORT INTO THE RECORD IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE.

SO THIS IS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR 2806 SOUTH FM 51.

SO THE REQUEST IS FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE TO SELL GASOLINE, HAVE GASOLINE SALES.

THE CONVENIENCE STORE ITSELF IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT.

IF THE APPLICANT OR THE PROPERTY OWNER BROUGHT IN BUILDING PLANS AND GOT THEM APPROVED TOMORROW, THEY COULD CONSTRUCT THE CONVENIENCE STORE. THE ONLY THING THAT REQUIRES THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IS THE GASOLINE SALES.

SO YOU HAVE HEARD THIS REQUEST ONE OTHER TIME.

THEY'RE COMING BACK. THEY DID NOT GARNER THE VOTES THAT WERE NECESSARY AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

SO THEY'VE UPDATED STORE OPERATING HOURS SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, 6 A.M.

TO 10 P.M. FRIDAY AND SATURDAY, 6 A.M. TO 11 P.M., AND THEN GAS PUMP OPERATING HOURS SEVEN DAYS A WEEK FROM 5 A.M.

TO 11 P.M.. SO IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.2.5 (C) (1) A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. PLANNING AND ZONING CAN RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS OR DENIAL OF SUCH REQUEST.

SO THE REPLAT OF THIS PROPERTY WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IN NOVEMBER OF 2025.

THE PROPERTY IS ZONED C-1 RESTRICTED BUSINESS.

AGAIN, THE SUP THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IS FOR GASOLINE SALES ONLY.

THIS DID NOT GARNER ENOUGH VOTES BY CITY COUNCIL AT THE JANUARY 12TH MEETING TO BE APPROVED.

IT REQUIRES 75% OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE IT.

THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR OFF PREMISES ALCOHOL, BEER AND WINE.

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL AT THAT JANUARY 12TH MEETING.

IT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL WHICH PRIMARY LAND USE IS RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL.

SO IT HAD A CONVENIENCE STORE ON IT WAY BACK IN THE DAY, 95 OR LATER OR EARLIER.

I MEAN, UP TO ABOUT 2014. THERE WAS THE PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED BY A FIRE AND SUBSEQUENTLY DEMOLISHED AND IT HAD GASOLINE SALES. YOU CAN SEE THE CANOPY IN THE ONE PICTURE.

SO IN 2023, THEY PROPOSED THE DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE WAS REQUESTED FOR PARKING THAT WAS TABLED.

THEY CAME BACK IN 2025 WITH NEW PLANS. THEY REMOVED ONE GAS PUMP TO HELP ACCOMMODATE FOR THE PARKING.

AND SO NOW THEY ARE ONLY GOING TO HAVE A TOTAL OF THREE GASOLINE PUMPS.

AND THEY ARE COMPLIANT WITH ALL THE CITY'S ZONING REQUIREMENTS.

LIGHTING IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPLIANT. NO LIGHTING SPILLAGE OVER INTO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

A PHOTOMETRIC PLAN WILL BE REVIEWED WHEN THEY SUBMIT THEIR BUILDING PERMITS.

THERE'S BUFFERING REQUIRED BETWEEN ANY OF THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, WHICH HAS TO BE MAINTAINED IN PERPETUITY.

AND ALL THESE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE REVIEWED THE TIME THEY SUBMIT THEIR CIVIL PLANS AND THEIR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION.

SO THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE ELEVATIONS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED HAS PROVIDED FOR STAFF TO USE.

THEY'VE ADDED A SIX FOOT WOODEN CEDAR FENCE AND CONTINUOUS DWARF BURFORD HOLLIES FOR THE REAR, WHICH THE HOLLIES WILL GROW UP AND AND HELP WITH THE ESTHETICS AND BUFFERING.

THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE EAST HAD ASKED. YEAH, NORTHEAST HAD ASKED A LITTLE BIT FOR A BETTER CURB TO KEEP THE PEOPLE FROM COMING INTO HIS PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO THAT.

THE APPLICANT ALSO CONDUCTED A NEIGHBORHOOD INTERACTIVE MEETING AFTER THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING ON FEBRUARY 5TH.

TO MY KNOWLEDGE, ONLY ONE OF THE OPPOSITION SHOWED UP OR CAME TO IT.

HE IT WAS THEY JOINED VIRTUALLY. I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE ONLY PERSON THAT THAT SHOWED UP.

IT WAS THE NEIGHBOR ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF IT.

[00:25:04]

SO NINE OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED VIA THE POSTAL SERVICE SINCE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IS A ZONING CHANGE.

IT WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE POSTED. SO THAT WAS POSTED.

WE HAVE RECEIVED FIVE OPPOSITIONS. THAT MAKES IT A 35.02%.

THE REASONS CITED DECREASED PROPERTY VALUES, SAFETY, TRAFFIC, DISRUPTION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AGAIN, IT WILL REQUIRE 75% APPROVAL VOTE BY CITY COUNCIL.

BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN OUR STAFF REPORT AND THE CONSISTENCY WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 26-0001.

DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? SIR, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE COME UP. THE APPLICANT FIRST.

IT'S I DON'T KNOW THAT IT. COME ON UP, SIR. OKAY.

THANK YOU ALL FOR GIVING US AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

AND HEAR OUR OPPOSITION. NAME AND ADDRESS. OH.

GLENN SPAIN, I'M SORRY. 2807 LIPSY ALL RIGHT GLENN.

YES. WELL, JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS. I'LL BE AS BRIEF AS I CAN BE.

I AM NOT AWARE THAT WITHIN THE CITY OF DECATUR, THERE IS ANY CONVENIENCE STORE SERVICE STATION THAT ACTUALLY SHARES A PROPERTY LINE WITH A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS ONE DOES IT. IT SHARES A PROPERTY LINE.

AND THIS. THE REASONS THAT WE WOULD OPPOSE IT AS PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS SOME OF THE OBVIOUS THINGS CONGESTED TRAFFIC ON 51, ESPECIALLY SOME OF THAT'S GOING TO EMPTY OUT INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT'S JUST INEVITABLE BECAUSE SOME OF THEIR TRAFFIC COMES OUT ON JOHN STREET.

IT'S GOING TO BE KIND OF A NARROW ENTRANCE ON 51.

SO IT'S GOING TO COME OUT ON JOHN AND COME RIGHT THROUGH RIGHT THROUGH LIPSY.

THAT'LL CREATE DISRUPTIVE NOISE CONGESTION. I KNOW YOU KNOW, THE PICTURES LOOK NICE.

IT LOOKS LIKE A WELL DESIGNED PROJECT. AND I'M NOT ANTI-BUSINESS OR ANTI SERVICE STATION.

THAT'S JUST NOT THE PLACE FOR IT. THERE'S PLENTY OF UNDEVELOPED LAND JUST FURTHER SOUTH ON 51 THA A NICE BIG, BEAUTIFUL SERVICE STATION COULD BE BUILT. BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ENGINE NOISE.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE LIGHTS HEADLIGHTS SHINING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WILL BE ABLE TO OVERHEAR CONVERSATIONS. HIGH VOLUME STEREOS AND I KNOW.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S PRECAUTIONS TAKEN FOR THE WALLS, BUT YOU CAN'T YOU CAN PULL UP AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT WITH SOMEBODY THAT'S GOT A BOOMBOX GOING, AND YOU FEEL IT AS MUCH AS YOU HEAR IT. WE'RE GOING TO GET SOME OF THAT.

NOT THE MAJORITY, BUT IT'LL BE THERE AND IT'LL BE VERY DISRUPTIVE AND IRRITATING TO US.

I ALSO BELIEVE SITTING RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE FAIRGROUNDS, IT'LL BE A, IT COULD BE A MAGNET FOR CHILDREN WANTING TO CROSS 51 TO COME GET SNACKS OR SOFT DRINKS OR WHATEVER.

AND 51 IS A PRETTY CONGESTED HIGHWAY RIGHT NOW.

I USED TO WALK ACROSS IT TO GO TO THINGS, BUT I DON'T DO THAT ANYMORE.

AND THERE'S THIS IS JUST NOT AN ENHANCEMENT TO, THE LIPSY ADDITION OR OUR NEIGHBORS. WE'VE PRESENTED A PETITION.

THERE'S 36 OF OUR NEIGHBORS THAT SIGNED THAT IN OPPOSITION.

THOSE SIGNATURES WERE NOT COERCED AT ALL. THEY WERE ALL THEY WERE ALL TAKEN IN ONE AFTERNOON.

SO IF WE NEED MORE SIGNATURES, WE CAN EASILY GET THEM.

BUT I HOPE THAT YOU'LL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DISRUPTIVE TO AN ESTABLISHED A QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND I HOPE YOU'LL, VOTE TO TO DENY THAT PERMIT, MAKE GREAT SPACE FOR OFFICE OFFICES, SIMILAR TO WHAT THE INSURANCE OFFICE IS BESIDE IT OR THE REHAB BUILDINGS AND SOME OTHER OFFICES THERE.

[00:30:04]

YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU GLENN, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE? YES, SIR. ARE YOU THE APPLICANT? OKAY.

OH, NO. I WAS ASKING HIM IF HE WAS THE APPLICANT.

NO. GO AHEAD AND LET HIM COME UP. THE GREEN ONE.

NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. THE GREEN ONE. THE GREEN GUY IN THE GREEN SHIRT.

[INAUDIBLE] I'M THE OWNER OF 2809 SOUTH LIPSY STREET.

I'M RIGHT BEHIND THIS GAS PROPOSED GAS STATION.

SO I HAVE A VIDEO SHOWING WE ALREADY. I ALREADY HIT IN THAT CORNER.

WE ALREADY HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC WHENEVER IT COMES TO HAVING AN EVENT THERE IN THE FAIRGROUNDS, WE HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC. THIS HAS BEEN RECENT, LIKE I THINK THROUGH 2 OR 3 WEEKS AGO.

SO I MEAN, WE GET HEAVILY, HEAVILY TRAFFICKED WHENEVER THERE'S AN EVENT THERE.

NOW, MY POINT IS WHENEVER THERE'S A GAS STATION THERE, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GO IN AND OUT GETTING GAS BECAUSE I MEAN, YOU HAVE THE PARK ALSO RIGHT THERE. YOU HAVE CASTLE TOURS ON THE WEEKENDS, YOU HAVE THE THE EVENTS GOING ON THE FAIRGROUNDS. I MEAN, ON THE WEEKENDS, THERE'S JUST GOING TO BE PACKED THERE PRETTY MUCH EVERY SINGLE TIME.

AND I MEAN, I JUST THINK THE SPACE WHERE THIS GAS STATION IS BEING BUILT IS JUST NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH.

THREE PUMPS FOR FOR THAT AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC. I MEAN, I DON'T, THINK THE SIZE OF IT.

I THINK IT'S A POINT FIVE ACRES, PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS MY HOUSE.

I MEAN, THIS IS GOING TO GET A THIS IS GOING TO BE A GAS STATION THAT IS GOING TO BE IMPACTED HEAVILY ON TRAFFIC BECAUSE YOU'RE GETTING I MEAN, 51 IS NOT GETTING ANY ANY LESS TRAFFIC. IT'S GETTING MORE TRAFFIC IN AND IT'S GOING TO GET MORE BUSINESSES AND EVERYTHING.

SO I THINK WE SHOULD THINK ON FUTURE WISE BECAUSE I MEAN, THIS GAS STATION FOR THE PLACE WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE AT IS GOING TO BE REALLY IMPACTED BY IT BY A LOT OF TRAFFIC. I MEAN, THE I DON'T THINK THE EVENTS ON THE FAIRGROUNDS ARE GOING ANYWHERE.

THE PARK IS BEING RIGHT THERE BECAUSE THE TOURISTS I MEAN, YOU'RE GOING TO GET ALL THAT TRAFFIC FROM OVER THERE.

PLUS ALL THE ALL YOUR RANCHERS AND EVERYBODY THERE'S GOING TO BE OUT COMING OUT OF THE.

SO I MEAN, YOU HAVE TRAILERS AND AND I MEAN, I JUST THINK IT'S THE, SPACE FOR THAT GAS STATION.

IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH FOR THE TRAFFIC THEY'RE GOING TO GET. THAT'S, THAT'S MY MAIN CONCERN.

AND THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. THANK YOU. NOW, SIR.

GOOD EVENING, I'M PRAVIN CASEY 1300 WEISQUALL TRAIL, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.

I AM AN ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR THIS PROJECT AND I'VE BEEN HERE MULTIPLE TIMES.

IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO ASK ME.

BUT I'LL POINT OUT SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT FROM LAST TIME VERSUS THIS TIME.

WHAT WE DID DIFFERENT WAS I TRIED TO REACH OUT TO OUR NEIGHBORS AND ALSO THE BUSINESS OWNERS NEXT TO IT.

TRY TO HAVE INTERACTION AND TRY TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERN.

ONE OF THE CONCERNS WAS PROPERTY VALUE THAT I DON'T HAVE CONTROL.

I'M A TECHNICAL GUY, BUT REGARDING LIGHTS TRAFFIC AND LIGHTS, WHAT WE DID IS BASED ON THE CITY ORDINANCE, THEY HAVE A MAXIMUM OF ONE FOOT CANDLE. WE ARE MINIMIZING AND WE CAN DO LESS THAN HALF.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERN. AND THEN ALSO ADDING THE CURVE AND BOLLARD WHERE TRAFFIC SURPLUS.

NOW I'M GLAD SOMEBODY WAS SHOWING THE VIDEO HERE.

WHAT I LIKE TO POINT OUT, IT'S A COMMERCIAL FACILITY ZONED COMMERCIAL.

WE ARE COMING FOR GAS. I KNOW IT IS A COMMERCIAL AND GAS, BUT SAME TIME LOOK INTO THE TRAFFIC WHEN THERE IS A GAME OR EVENT, THAT EMPTY SPACE, EVERYBODY IS PARKING RIGHT THERE.

SO THAT'S THAT IS EMPTY. AND IT HAS BEEN THERE.

AND MY CLIENT, HE BOUGHT IT AND RIGHT AFTER THE FIRE EVENT HE BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY THERE AND HE BOUGHT IT FOR THE CONVENIENCE STORE AND A GAS STATION. WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT EMPTY SPACE IS STILL EVEN RIGHT NOW IT'S CREATING A LOT OF TRAFFIC.

SO IF THERE IS A BUSINESS WHICH IS RUN BY OWNER OPERATOR, IT CAN BE WELL MAINTAINED.

THAT'S MY OPINION ONLY, BUT I'M HERE TO HEAR IF THERE IS ANY ENGINEERING SOLUTION THAT I CAN BRING ON THE TABLE.

I'M HERE TO DO THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? YES, SIR. ROBERT TALLEY. 2908 SOUTH GARLAND. GARLAND LIPSEY AREA. IT'S A MIDDLE CLASS, ESTABLISHED OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD.

[00:35:01]

I'M ONE OF THE OLD PEOPLE NOW. I WASN'T IN 96.

I WAS NEW, I WAS. WE DON'T NEED A GAS STATION, BEER STORE IN AN ESTABLISHED OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT'S ALL I GOT. THANK YOU SO MUCH, ROBERT. THANK YOU.

DO YOU HAVE ANYONE ELSE? DO WE HAVE ANYONE ONLINE? LISA, DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT? SO JUST FOR CONSISTENCY AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, AGAIN, THE CONVENIENCE STORE IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT. THEY CAN BUILD IT TOMORROW IF THEY GET THEIR APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT.

COUNCIL ALREADY APPROVED THE ALCOHOLIC OFF PREMISE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES.

THE ONLY THING THEY'RE HERE FOR, AGAIN, IS TO TRY TO GET THE GASOLINE SALES TO GO ALONG WITH THE CONVENIENCE STORE, WHICH IS CONSISTENT, AGAIN, WITH OUR CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF A RETAIL COMMERCIAL USE.

THE RESTRICTED BUSINESS DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR THE CONVENIENCE STORE.

YOU JUST HAVE TO HAVE THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE GASOLINE SALES.

SO BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AGAIN WE WILL REVIEW THE LIGHTING.

WE REVIEW THE BUFFERING AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT TO MAKE SURE IT IS CONSISTENT.

AND THE APPLICANT HAS TRIED TO REACH OUT TO SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS.

AND HE DID HOLD THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. SO IT'S CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST. OKAY. LAST CALL. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. HEARING NONE, THEN WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING.

IT IS NOW 610 COMMISSIONERS. MR. CHAIRMAN. YES, SIR.

CAN I HAVE ONE MINUTE JUST TO CONSULT WITH COUNCIL? THERE MAY BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH ME OWNING A PROPERTY IN THE SAME AREA.

SO I'D JUST LIKE TO ASK. IS THAT ALL RIGHT? YES IT IS.

ONE MINUTE.

DID Y'ALL KNOW THAT WHEN THE HULK GETS MAD, HE TURNS INTO CHUCK NORRIS? OKAY. ALL GOOD. YOU GOOD? YES, SIR. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS.

ANY COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? MY MAIN COMMENT WOULD BE THAT, ONCE AGAIN, WE APPROVE THIS BEFORE IT'S BEEN APPROVED MULTIPLE TIMES.

THERE WAS A STORE AND IT SOLD GAS. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THAT WAS IN EXISTENCE WHEN SOME OF THOSE HOUSES WERE BUILT.

OUR ROLE HERE IS LARGELY MINISTERIAL. IF THIS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST, IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING ZONING AND WITH THE HISTORIC USE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, IT'S 99% OF THE TIME, MY OPINION THAT WE SHOULD, IN FACT FOLLOW THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, AND THAT IS MY OPINION THIS TIME AS WELL.

OKAY. LISA. A GENTLEMAN BROUGHT UP THAT HE DIDN'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY CONVENIENCE STORES OR GAS STATIONS ADJACENT TO ANY NEIGHBOR OR OTHER SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES. AND OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL, MR. SMITH, ACTUALLY LOOKED UP AND THE QT THAT IS OVER THERE ON HALE AND TRENCHARD.

RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET OF TRENCHARD, IT'S ALL ZONED SINGLE FAMILY EXCEPT FOR ONE PARCEL WHICH IS ON THE CORNER.

CORNER PARCEL. SO THAT IS ALL ZONED SINGLE FAMILY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS COMMISSIONERS. OKAY.

HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF SUP 260001 TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

I'LL OFFER A MOTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

I'LL SECOND. OKAY. I'VE GOT A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND A SECOND.

THE MOTION WAS FOR APPROVAL WAS FOR COMMISSIONER MASON WOODRUFF.

MY SECOND WAS FROM COMMISSIONER SHELBY HICKS.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY. MOVING ON TO ITEM 4 PUBLIC HEARING.

[ITEM 4: RP-26-0001. Consider and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding a request to Replat an approximate 0.61-acre parcel, described as Lot 1R, Block 111, South Decatur Addition, being a replat of Lots 1, 2, and 4, Block 111, South Decatur Addition, located in the City of Decatur, Wise County, Texas, also known as 1600 S College Street. (Quint Burks, on behalf of Eric Kavicky, Property Owner) ]

OKAY. YES. LISA HANNON PLANNING DIRECTOR. WE'LL ENTER OUR STAFF REPORT INTO THE RECORD IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE.

SO THIS IS A REPLAT FOR.

[00:40:09]

IT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.

A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED FOR THE EXISTING POOL HOUSE STRUCTURE.

FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK AND A REAR YARD SETBACK THAT IS SCHEDULED FOR THE APRIL 13TH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING.

IT'S 0.61 ACRES. THERE'S AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON IT.

IT HAD AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OF A CARPORT THAT WAS DESTROYED BY THE ICE STORM.

AND THEY WILL BE REQUESTING A NEW CARPORT. 17 PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED VIA THE POSTAL SERVICE.

WE'VE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES EXCEPT BY THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR A POSITIVE AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS REPLAT WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ARE APPROVED AT THE APRIL 13TH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING.

DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? DO WE HAVE ANYONE ONLINE? OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IT IS NOW 6:15 COMMISSIONERS. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS.

JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. IN THE SCHEMATIC, IT SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTY JOGS OUT AROUND THAT POOL HOUSE OR WHATEVER IT IS. SO THAT'S HOW IT'S CURRENTLY SURVEYED? YES, SIR.

OKAY. YES, SIR. I ASSUME THE POOL HOUSE HAS BEEN THERE FOR SOME TIME.

BEEN THERE FOR SOME TIME? YES, SIR. OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? THEY WERE HERE SEVERAL YEARS AGO. SOME REQUEST.

I DON'T RECALL WHAT IT WAS. I BELIEVE IT WAS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR CURBS, GUTTERS AND SIDEWALKS.

I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE PROJECT WAS AT THE TIME.

STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. CHERYL HERE, WHICH IS ON WALKER STREET. THEY WANTED THAT PROPERTY AND THEY GOT A CURB OKAY, NOW, THIS THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN HERE BEFORE.

IT'S BEEN SEVERAL YEARS. ANYWAY. IT'S FINE, IT'S FINE.

YEAH. I DON'T REMEMBER. MAYBE THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD A SHOP BUILDING AND THEN OPTED NOT TO OR SOMETHING.

I DON'T REMEMBER. BEFORE MY TIME. OKAY, SO CHERYL WILL LOOK IT UP.

IF WE COME UP WITH SOMETHING, WE'LL FIND COMMISSIONERS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY. HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF RP 26-0001 TO CITY COUNCIL WITH STAFFS CONDITIONS. I'D LIKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF RP 26-0001 TO CITY COUNCIL WITH CONDITIONS.

OKAY, I'VE GOT A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. I NEED A SECOND.

I'LL SECOND. OKAY. I'VE GOT A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER JOHN LANIER.

I'VE GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER, HER EILEEN CROSS.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE AYE AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY.

GOING INTO PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE, IT IS 6:18.

[ITEM 5: RP-26-0002. Consider and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding a request to Replat Lots 11R1 and 11R2, Block J, Mrs. E.O. Cates Addition, being a replat of Lots 11 – 13, Block J, Mrs. E. O. Cates Addition, located in the City of Decatur, Wise County, Texas, also known as 201 and 203 S Cates Street. (Cliff Spence, on behalf of Spence Residential Properties, LLC, property owner)]

SO THIS IS ANOTHER REPLAT. IT'S 201 AND 203 SOUTH CATES STREET.

SO THERE ARE TWO LOTS. BOTH OF THESE LOTS ARE BEING PLATTED AS TWO SEPARATE LOTS.

THEY DO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER, THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, WHENEVER IT WAS BUILT WAY BACK IN THE 90S OR BEFORE THAT, IT ENCROACHED ONTO OVER THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.

SO WHEN MR. SPENCE DECIDED TO PLAT THE NORTH PROPERTY, THIS SETBACK ISSUE CAME INTO.

CAME INTO LIGHT WITH US. SO HE IS GIVEN THAT PROPERTY OR SOLD.

I DON'T KNOW THAT'S BETWEEN HIM AND THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNER. SO HE'S MOVED A PROPERTY LINE TO REPLAT BOTH PROPERTIES.

[00:45:03]

SO THE 201 SOUTH CATES IS 0.1 ACRE. IT'S 4,353FT².

THEY'RE PROPOSING A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

AND TO THE SOUTH, THE 203 SOUTH CATES .11 ACRES WITH 4,640FT² EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

NOW, BOTH OF THESE WILL REQUIRE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS DUE TO THE NORTH PROPERTY IS DUE TO THE LOT WIDTH.

IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A MINIMUM 50FT, BUT IT'S 48.40.

AND THE MINIMUM LOT AREA IS 4,353 INSTEAD OF 8,000FT².

HOWEVER, THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER AS PART OF OUR INFILL DEVELOPMENT.

OUR INFILL POLICY THAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL LAST JULY.

SO THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR THE LOT DIMENSIONS ARE SCHEDULED FOR THE APRIL 13TH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING.

AND THIS IS A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN THAT MR. SPENCE HAS PROVIDED FOR US.

AND AN ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION OF JUST A CONCEPTUAL.

THEY'RE PROPOSING A TWO STORY STRUCTURE AND AN ATTACHED TWO CAR GARAGE.

SO 203 SOUTH CATES SECOND LOT IS WE HAVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK, 14.2 INSTEAD OF 25FT.

AND THEN SIDE YARD SHOULD BE 10% OF THE FRONTAGE, BUT WE'RE A LITTLE BIT SHORT, SO THAT'LL REQUIRE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION ALONG WITH THE LOT AREA. THIS, SINCE IT'S ALREADY DEVELOPED IS NOT AN INFILL LOT, BUT WE ARE ALLOWING IT TO GO THROUGH BECAUSE IT'S AN EXISTING LOT WITH EXISTING WITH AN EXISTING STRUCTURE ON IT. THEY'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING.

WE'RE JUST BRINGING IT MORE INTO COMPLIANCE. SO WE'VE NOTIFIED 25 PROPERTY OWNERS VIA THE POSTAL SERVICE.

WE'VE NOT RECEIVED ANY OPPOSITION NEUTRAL OR IN FAVOR OF.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT FOR THESE TWO PROPERTIES, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ARE APPROVED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 13TH MEETING. DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? ANYONE ONLINE? OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE IT.

IT'S NOW 6:21 COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS.

THEY CURRENTLY EXIST AS 201 AND 203. YES, THERE WERE JUST REPLATING THEM BOTH INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS.

I MEAN, THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE LOTS NOW, BUT WE'RE JUST RUNNING THE REPLATS TOGETHER.

RIGHT. THEY'LL HAVE THEY'LL BE BOTH TWO SEPARATE LOTS.

OKAY.

WE DO. BECAUSE WE HAD TO MOVE IT UP A WEEK EARLY, BUT IT'S AT YES, MA'AM. YES, MA'AM. YES. I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BY.

I GUESS THIS ISN'T THE FORMAL PLAN, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A GAP BETWEEN THE LOT LINE AND PECAN STREET.

THERE'S A VERY LARGE RIGHT OF WAY THERE. THERE'S A LARGE RIGHT OF WAY BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND PECAN STREET.

IT'S A LARGE RIGHT OF WAY. WELL, THEN THE LINE AT PECAN STREET SHOULDN'T JAG.

I MEAN, SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT ON THIS PLAT.

THERE'S A STRIP HERE BETWEEN PECAN STREET AND THE PLAT LINE.

THAT'S THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE. WE GO BY WHAT THE PROPERTY LINE IS BASED OFF THE SURVEY.

WHEN? LET'S SEE. HOLD ON. LET ME GET. WELL, I'M THE THAT LINE OF PECAN STREET FOR THE NEXT LOT BEHIND IT IS IN LINE WITH WHAT'S SHOWN HERE.

SO I'M SAYING. BUT IF WE LOOK AT THE AERIAL, YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTIES OF INTEREST THERE OF WHERE THE GAP IS BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND PECAN STREET. ALL THAT GREEN SPACE UP THERE IS PART OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

AS PER I'M SORRY, ONCE UPON A TIME I LIVED ON PECAN STREET AND THAT'S PART OF AN OLDER PART OF DECATUR AND I.

SO WHAT CITY PLAT SHOWS. I WISH WAYNE HAD NOT LEFT.

WELL, WE BASE WE HONESTLY WE BASE ALL OF OUR STUFF ON THE SURVEY WE TAKE.

SINCE THEY'RE A LICENSED SURVEYOR THAT PROVIDES US WITH THE PLAT INFORMATION STAFFS, YOU KNOW, AND WE'VE MADE MADE VERIFIED THAT THE CLOSURE REPORT CLOSES AND THIS IS HOW IT'S DRAWN.

[00:50:16]

SO BUT I APPRECIATE THAT. WHO'S THE SURVEYOR ON THIS? TOMMY BURKS, QUENTIN BURKS.

SO BASED ON ON MR. SPENCE, HE'S KIND OF TRIED TO DRAW TO SCALE A SITE PLAN.

IT IS APPROXIMATELY 17FT FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT TO HIS PROPERTY LINE.

WELL, I DON'T HAVE A BASIS TO OBJECT TO WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO HERE, BUT I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF WHERE HE HAS PLACED THE BOUNDARY OF PECAN STREET. I'LL JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE ADJOINING HOUSES DOWN PECAN STREET. THEY MAY BE TOO CLOSE TO PECAN STREET IF IN FACT, THE BOUNDARY PECAN STREET IS WHERE HE SAYS IT IS. AND I WISH WAYNE WOULD GET BACK IN HERE, BUT HE CAN'T HEAR ME.

SO, ANYWAY HOLD ON. WE CAN GET HIM. THAT'S FINE.

I DON'T AGAIN, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO MATTER, GIVEN WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO IN THE REPLAT.

WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE. I THIS IS NOT A BASIS TO OBJECT TO THOUGH, SO I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM.

OKAY. COMMISSIONERS DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY. HEARING NONE, THEN I'LL GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN A RECOMMENDED.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF RP 26-0002 TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH STAFF'S CONDITIONS. CHAIRMAN, I'M SO SORRY, I PROBABLY MISSED IT, BUT DID YOU OPEN AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS? I DID, I CLOSED IT AT 6:21. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IT WAS OPENED AT 6:18. THANK YOU.

OKAY, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF CATES TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH STAFFS CONDITIONS.

CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF RP 26-0002 TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH STAFFS CONDITIONS.

OKAY, I'VE GOT A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. I NEED A SECOND.

I'LL SECOND. I'VE GOT A SECOND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

I'VE GOT A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER BRAD MORGAN.

AND I'VE GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER JOHN LANIER.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY, MOVING ON TO ITEM SIX.

[ITEM 6: FP-25-0013 – Consider and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding a Final Plat application for Block A, Lots 1-22, 1X, 2X; Block B, Lots 1-8, 1X; Block C, Lots 1-20, 1X; Block D, Lots 1-11, 1X; Block E, Lots 1-4, 1X; being 8.496 acres, part of David Moses Survey, Abst. No. 537, City of Decatur, Wise County, Texas, also known as 700 S Deer Park Road. (Zheeno Rostam, Architechton, LLC, on behalf of Decatur Deer Run Investors, LLC, property owner) ]

IT WAS THE FINAL PLAT FOR NEVILLE TERRACE, 700 DEER PARK ROAD.

HOWEVER IT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN, SO THEY ARE WORKING TO REGROUP AND MAY RESUBMIT AT A LATER DATE.

SO THAT TAKES US. OKAY. AND NOW WE'VE GOT A CONSENT AGENDA ON SEVEN AND EIGHT.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

IF YOU WANT TO PULL THEM AND ASK QUESTIONS, WE CAN.

OTHERWISE YOU CAN APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS WRITTEN.

COMMISSIONERS Y'ALL OKAY WITH THIS? THE ONLY CAVEAT I HAVE IS THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DOESN'T SAY WHAT RECOMMENDATION YOU'RE MAKING.

SO YOU WOULD NEED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. OKAY.

HERE. I CAN GO TO THE BOTTOM. YOU'RE MAD AT ME, AREN'T YOU, PAM? NO, SIR. NEVER HAVE BEEN, AND I DOUBT I EVER WILL BE.

[LAUGHTER] SO INSTEAD OF APPROVE IT SHOULD BE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.

OKAY. TO CITY COUNCIL. RIGHT. THESE TWO ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

MY MISTAKE ON THAT. IT'S OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? OKAY. HEARING NONE THEN I'LL ENTER A VOTE. HOW DO I HOW AM I DOING THIS?

[00:55:05]

RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS TO CITY COUNCIL.

OKAY. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS SEVEN AND EIGHT, WHICH ARE PP 25-0009 AND FP-25-0011. SO MOVED.

SECOND. OKAY, I'VE GOT A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.

IS IT A RECOMMENDATION? YES. YES, SIR. FROM COMMISSIONER JOHN LANIER.

YES. AND THEN I'VE GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SHELBY HICKS.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY. ITEM NINE.

ITEM TEN, FOR YOUR INFORMATION. ITEM NINE, MY TYPO ON THE AGENDA.

[ITEM 10: Discussion of future agenda, new business items, staff requests, and potential special called meeting and/or workshop requests: a. As of the agenda posting, the Tuesday, April 7, 2026, meeting currently has three (3) Planning applications. The submittal deadline was March 9, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. (If there is a meeting, the meeting will be an in-person meeting with potential virtual attendance of staff and members of the public unless otherwise determined.) ]

WE HAVE THREE APPLICATIONS, SO WE'LL SEE EVERYBODY THEN.

OKAY. THIS MEETING IS CLOSED NOW. IT IS 6:30.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.