Minutes TC 07/15/1997 - Joint SessionMINUTES OF
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB, TEXAS
July 15, 1997
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DENTON
The Town Council of the Town of Trophy Club, Texas met in a Public Hearing/ Joint Town
Council Meeting/ Finance Committee Budget Workshop on Tuesday, July 15, 1997. The meeting
was held within the boundaries of the Town and was open to the public.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Jim Carter
Marshall Engelbeck
Susan H. McCabe
Doug Glaspell
Kevin Carr
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:
Edwin "Ed" Decker
STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT:
Karen Sadri
Bill LeGrand
Roger Unger
Hardy Thompson
Kelly Johnson
Gary Tomlin
LouAnne Gibson
Wally Funk
John Peters
Ronnie Phillips
Alan Smith
Tom Ritz
Bob & Jodi Ashby
Kevin McCollough
Jimmy McCloud
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Town Secretary
Director of Public Works
MUD Manager
Town Attorney
Sargeant, TCPD
Resident/Reporter
Resident, 243 Oak Hill Dr.
Resident, 243 Oak Hill Dr.
Resident, 402 Hilltop Ct.
Attorney for owners of 241 Oak Hill Dr.
Representative for Mortgage Company,
241 Oak Hill Dr.
Resident, 3 Cimarron Ct.
Residents, 4 Mesa Verde Ct.
Resident, I Mesa Verde Ct.
Minister, First Baptist Church, TC
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT: cont.
Walt Wood
Sandra Parker
Ron Lewandowski
STAFF AND GUESTS ABSENT:
Donna Welsh
Resident, 2 Alamosa Dr.
Resident, 1038 Trophy Club Dr.
Representative for Methodist Church
Town Manager
CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM:
Mayor Carter called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and announced there was a quorum
present.
INVOCATION:
Mayor Carter asked Gary Tomlin to give the invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE AMERICAN AND TEXAS FLAG:
Mayor Carter asked Sgt. Kelly Johnson, TCPD to lead both pledges.
PUBLIC HEARING:
TOWN COUNCIL TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING:
Mayor Pro Tem Engelbeck moved to open the Public Hearing. Council Member McCabe
seconded, motion passed unanimously.
TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB, TEXAS TO CONDUCT A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT STRUCTURES AND
IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 241 OAK HILL DRIVE WITHIN THE TOWN
CONSTITUTE DANGEROUS STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR
URBAN NUISANCE:
Mayor Carter: All right. The public hearing is now declared open. And I am going to call on Mr.
Hardy Thompson, Mr. Thompson is the principal with the firm of'Thompson &
Knight and Mr. Thompson is here. He has done work on the project at 241 Oak
Hill for the Town in the past and has kind of been the lead attorney on that,
assisted by Mr. Hill. Hardy, why don't you turn... since this is a very new
procedure to the Town of Trophy Club let me turn it over to you and ask you to
brief the audience and the Council on the procedures that we are going through
tonight, what the objectives are and what we hope to achieve.
Page 3
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
Thompson: Thank you, Mayor. Tonight a public hearing is being held in accordance with the
Town's ordinance which deals with this issue. The purpose of the public hearing is
to take testimony or take information down before the Council at this hearing for
the purpose of establishing whether or not this particular tract of land and this
property meets the standards set out in the ordinance for a hazard to property and
a hazard to the citizens of the community. The ordinance has some specific
standards that have to be met with testimony in this evening's hearing and if that
does not come forward by the citizens who appear to testify, with your permission,
_(unintelligible)- I would like to ask Mr. Bill LeGrand a few questions just so
that we have a complete record of all of the facts necessary so that when the public
hearing closes then the Council will have a complete record before it in accordance
with the ordinance to take whatever action the Council feels is appropriate, based
on the testimony that has come into the hearing. So, the first step is to get this
information publicly and in a hearing, notice has been sent by certified mail, return
receipt requested, to the people who have an interest in the property and to the
mortgage holder. They are not required to be present, but if they are present they
would certainly be permitted and expected to speak. One of the things that can be
done once the hearing is closed and the Council considers the issue is to make a
finding that the property is a hazard and if that's done the Council could then enter
an order requiring the owner and the mortgage company to make the property
safe. And in this case you could even include in that order that the property, the
house on there be demolished,and the lot then made safe as an area in the public,
safe to the public. If that's done, then the property owner or the mortgage
company has the right to, this evening, come forward and say we can do that but
we can... here's our plan, this is how many days it will take us and you can enter
that in your order if the plan is reasonable to you, but otherwise your order will be
that they must accomplish it within 30 days. You can go up to 90 days, not over
90 days, if they have a plan that is reasonable and sets forward step by step who
will do what and how they would proceed.
Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Let me ask, first, is the property owner present, or is
any one who is a lienholder present on that property, or is there anyone from the
title company? Anyone having any interest in that property present here tonight?
Phillips: Yes, my name is Ronnie Phillips. I'm the attorney for the property owner.
Mayor: All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you for identifying yourself. We will certainly
give you the opportunity to speak. You probably want to hear the testimony
beforehand')
Page 4
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
Phillips: Yes sir.
Mayor: Yes sir.
Smith: My name is Alan Smith, on behalf of the mortgage company.
Mayor: Thank you sir. All right. Has anyone signed up to speak Karen?
Sadri: LouAnne Gibson of 243 Oak Hill Drive.
Mayor: All right. Please.
Gibson: LouAnne Gibson. I live directly to the east of 241. If you want proof on a
dangerous building, we have taken reams and reams of photos. Of course, the best
proof you can get is to go out there and walk around the property yourself. You
may want to wear a hardhat and some eye glasses, because windows break and
bricks fall off. Here are some pictures for you. Most of these are taken pretty
much vertical, and you can see how the house is leaning. Would you just pass
those around. I have a fear right now when Mr. Thompson said something about
90 days, it could be 90 days from whenever you say it's going to come down.
That's not going to work. In 90 days I may be losing my home. Our neighbors are
losing their home as we speak. They are trying to save it, and I don't want to lose
mine. And if I do, well I know you don't care about us personally, but somebody's
going to have a big hurt and it's probably going to be the Town of Trophy Club for
screwing around. We were blown off three days ago. We were here at this
meeting when you blew us off. You said you couldn't get hold of the mortgage
company's lawyers to talk about it. That's why we walked out. I'm disappointed.
It's not my word. We pay the taxes. We love Trophy Club. We love to play golf.
Help us.
Mayor: Thank you. Anyone else?
Sadri: Wally Funk of 243 Oak Hill Drive.
Funk: My name's Wally Funk and I live at the same place and I have a pop quiz for you
all. And when I instruct you to do so you may turn it over..... You may now turn
them over and I hope you scrutinize them very carefully. We take film every day.
We watch bricks come apart every day. You couldn't give Rene an answer last
time that we were here for a tear down. I certainly hope that we can have one
tonight. My life is in jeopardy.
Page 5
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
I'm sorry that nobody has been able to get hold of Chase Manhattan to see where
we are. I have spent more money than I told you last year, or last month, on
protecting our home and it's going to take $40,000 more plus just for a few more
piers because of this house interfering and pulling down. The pool is now empty.
It's been empty for 10 days. I came back off my last trip, all the engineers said,
"Oh, this is going to rise up and go down the hill." It hasn't moved. I mean, it's
moved because the house has moved. The skunk situation is gone because
underneath the house is flooded from all the rains. The sewer system doesn't sm111
anymore, so those are two pluses. But folks, I have talked to several mayors from
different cities that I have lived in, given them the same scenario and they're
appalled at what Trophy Club has not done. Thanks.
Mayor: Thank you. Anyone else.)
Sadri: No, except the attorney for Mr. Schearer.
Mavor: Okay. Anyone else?
Sadri: No other residents.
Mayor: All right. Yes sir.
Peters: I had my name on the list there for coming forward also.
Sadri: I'm sorry, you're right. John Peters of 402 Hilltop Court.
Peters: I am director of MUD 1, and I can tell you that we looked at this house in the
early part of April and at that time the house next door had about a 3 -inch gap
before you got to a planting area and the house was pretty safe. I looked at the
house again toward the end of the month, just before elections, and there was a
huge gap underneath Rene's house at that time. Gentlemen, that's been over a
quarter of a year ago and you are still, it seems to me, about dead center. It's time
to move and I think we need to give ultimatums if that were necessary in order to
get this thing resolved. That house is a menace. Not only to endangering people,
but I think it's a bad image that's establishing for Trophy Club and I'd like to see it
fixed.
Mayor: Thank you. Anyone else".... Sir, would you like to address the Council?
Page 6
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
Phillips: Yes. As I said, my name is Ronnie Phillips. I represent the Schearers, who are the
owners of the house. Let me correct a couple of misconceptions first. There's
been no difficulty in getting in touch with the mortgage company. There's been no
lack of diligence on behalf of the Town's counsel. The legal counsel, Mr. John
Hill, has been in contact with me on a basis that's far more regular than I like
because my clients have to pay me every time he calls and he's been quite diligent
in contacting me in working through several issues in relation to this property. As
you know, my clients purchased the property for approximately $309,000 and had
the house fail down around their ears. They had no knowledge of any defects that
had not been repaired; they had no ability to foresee this problem. The permits
that we will assume were issued in conjunction with the remodeling of this house
after the original round of litigation from the prior owners that we also had no
knowledge of at the time we purchased the house were issued, the work was
completed of a cosmetic nature and we are suffering the brunt of the damage as a
result of that. There's not much that we can do at this point. When we purchased
the house the Schearers signed a mortgage. In that mortgage, that's a form that's
pretty standard in Texas real estate transactions,we promised that we would not do
anything to injure the house. As you can obviously see, demolishing the house is a
direct and absolute violation of our covenant not to injure the house. We don't
have the money to repair the house. In fact, the house is not repairable. I think
any of your experts, any of the neighbors, are quick to notice that. The house
cannot be repaired. The house is falling down. There is a great deal of litigation
that is pending in this matter. "There are several interested parties. The
homeowners insurance company that insures the home is a very interested party.
A claim has been made against them to pay the damages and take care of the
demolition of the house. They are investigating that claim. Notice has been sent
to the mortgage company and Chase has been very cooperative in assuring that as
soon as the legalities are worked out, as soon as all parties to the ultimate litigation
have had ample opportunity to have their experts examine and determine what the
causes are, that this matter can proceed. The other problem is that the Schearers
are liable on several hundred thousand dollars worth of indebtedness. They had to
find another place to live. They can't afford to tear this house down. We are
asking for help from the mortgage company that has indicated they are willing to
help. We have asked for help from the insurance company. We don't have an
answer fi-om them yet. We have received numerous bids on demolishing the
house, but we have not received one yet that is inexpensive enough to proceed.
We have had those bids examined by our experts, who tell us those bids are too
high; and we have several companies preparing bids to submit at this time. We
anticipate we'll receive those in the next few days.
Page 7
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
The City's attorney has contacted us regularly, has been given updates on an
almost daily basis -- I did go to Florida, another lawyer that went on vacation for a
few days-- but we're doing what we can do. We have a legal obligation to those
parties that we are about to engage in litigation to give them an opportunity to
conduct their investigation so that when this case comes to trial everyone would
have had a full and fair opportunity to be heard. There have been some incidents
that have occurred in the interim. I received a call from your attorney's office last
week that some repairs were being conducted on the adjacentproperty and the
contractor was concerned that there might be a potential hazard in regard to some
wood and some bricks that could possibly fall. Within a matter of an hour the
appropriate attorneys had been contacted; the permission slips had been faxed to
my office, executed and faxed back so that that contractor could proceed to pull
down that portion of the building that could pose a hazard to any of the workers.
That was done immediately and we continue to cooperate in that fashion, but as far
as being able to give this Council a timetable in relation to an ordinance that was
not in effect at the time this condition arose. We are unable to do that at this time.
Mayor: Thank you, sir. Sir, would you like to address the Council?
Smith: I'm Alan Smith on behalf of the mortgage company, and Ronnie's correct. The
mortgage company is very interested in the matter, trying to cooperate fully with
the property owners. Currently they are not in default on the loan. Unless the
mortgage company could proceed with foreclosure, which Hardy can confirm with
you would take a couple of months to process, there's really nothing the mortgage
company can do as far as moving onto the property and taking action. The
property owners are in control. So, we are emphasizing our desire to cooperate
and work with the property owners. If, in fact, there is a need to proceed with the
demolition, obviously our desire would be to either have the property owners
control that situation or allow the mortgage company to go through the processes
according to Texas law and have the opportunity to do the same without the
necessity of the City having to go through that.
Mayor: Thank you, sir. Anyone else?... May I ask, sir, I'm sorry, I don't know your name.
Phillips: Ronnie Phillips.
Mayor: All right, and you represent the property owner?
Phillips: Yes.
Page 8
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
Mayor: All right. You now, this has been a long, lingering problem and it is pretty
obvious, I think, to everyone that the structure is a danger. And there is no
possibility of saving this structure. It's too far beyond repair and has been for
several months, and I just wonder what is the resistance or where is the problem
for taking this down? We have spent, the Town has been very diligently, as you
say having Mr. Hill track this situation now for several months, pushing to get the
property down. What does it take to just get it done as quickly as possible. The
Town has some hesitance because if we take it down we've got citizens', taxpayers'
money involved in the destruction of the property, and then how do we recoup
that citizens', taxpayers' money and how with the condition of that house if we take
it down there is some potential liability for the adjacent property owners who
consider that house being, I'm sure I'm speaking for both sides property owners,
that house being a cause of some problems for them. Ms. Funk said that she had
spent something like $20,000 and I would assume that the neighbors on the other
side have spent far in excess of that because they've had some considerable work
done. How can we just get this thing done speedily and as quickly as possible?
Phillips: Well, the problem is one of economics. My clients do not have the money to pay
$15-25,000 to have that house demolished. It's quite simple.
Mayor: Well, you know, that $15-25,000 of somebody's money. The Town doesn't own
the property. It's not the Town's problem, it's the property owner's problem. And
the second question 1 would have to you is the property owners in that area think
that this house, that their contention is and I'm not an expert, that this house has
cost them some money.
Has there been a lawsuit filed by those property owners against the owners here to
recover the costs that they have incurred.
Phillips: We've received no claims, no lawsuits in relation to that. I don't know what
proportion of those costs that they have incurred are in relation to any claim for
damages caused by the Schearer house or whether those are simply repairs that
they would have had to conduct on their house without regard to the existence of
any adjacent problems. I have not been privy to any of that information. But, the
other problem that we have is that one of the elements that we are claiming against
the . (unintelligiblgL is a right of rescission, which is what we think is actually the
appropriate remedy, that the previous seller of the house, Hawkeye Properties,
should simply come give us our money back, take over the house. They're the
ones that went in their originally and purchased it from the previous owners who
were in litigation and sold it to us.
Page 9
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
And obviously to exercise that remedy of rescission the property would be theirs
and then their responsibility, and that's certainly what the Schearers feel is the
appropriate course of action, but today Hawkeye Properties has not agreed to do
that.
Mayor: Obviously, if that house is causing those problems, you know the money that has
been spent by the people on both sides, you know there are potential other
lawsuits involved there, too. The Town has limited powers, but the homeowners
certainly can recover losses that are occurred by that house to their property, if
that's proved to be the case. Is there a simple answer?
Phillips: No. I'm sorry. I wish there were. If it were a smaller structure, if my clients were
wealthy individuals, yes. This was their dream home. They came here, they saw
it, they wanted it, they stretched every penny they had to acquire it and they have
been living for a long period of time in a 1200 sq. ft. home with all of their
possessions stacked around them. They had to store a majority of their family
heirlooms. They are in danger of losing those because they can't pay the storage
expenses on those because of the other expenses that they've incurred as a result of
this proceeding and they are absolutely strapped at this point to do everything they
can to continue their lives and try to remedy this situation. And we certainly are
sympathetic with the people that the Schearers anticipated would be their
neighbors for years and years to come. There's just not much we can do at this
point. Other than cooperate.
Mayor: To your knowledge, the property ownership has changed in the past. Is that
correct, is the property still in the ownership of the Schearers?
Phillips: I'm not aware of any change in the ownership.
Mayor: Our ordinance indicates a different ownership name. Our ordinance indicates an
ownership name with Mrs. Schearer, I guess. But it was changed in September or
so of last year.
Phillips: I saw an indication on one of the documents from the mortgage company that
there may have been a quitclaim transfer and I'm not aware of why that may have
been done as Mrs. Schearer is the Elizabeth Disco -Allan referenced in that
document and is still one of the owners and Mr. Schearer still retains an ownership
interest to that extent.
Page 10
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
Mayor: Hardy, why don't you, before the Council asks any additional questions, why don't
you go ahead with whatever procedure you think is appropriate and then we will
turn it over to the Council.
Thompson: Thank you. Under the ordinance, the hearing needs to establish certain facts. One
of them is the ability for the Council to have a framework before it to declare this a
dangerous building as defined in the ordinance and rather than ask Mr. Phillips and
the counsel for the mortgage company to stipulate that, because stipulations have
sometimes legal consequences that go further than they might be willing to do,
with the Council's permission I would like to ask Mr. LeGrand with the City, who
is familiar with the property, some questions that I think would establish the
criteria under the ordinance for declaration of a dangerous building and also an
urban nuisance. If we have your permission to proceed with that..... Mr.
LeGrand, would you please just state for the record your name and your capacity,
title, with the City?
LeGrand: Yes sir. My name is William D. LeGrand. I am the Public Works Director for the
Town of Trophy Club.
Thompson: And, are you familiar with the property in question?
LeGrand: Yes sir.
Thompson: Have you been on-site and personally observed it?
LeGrand: Yes, numerous times.
Thompson: All right_ From you observation, can you testify whether or not in your opinion
that this building is of a nature that would be dangerous, that could injure, hurt or
harm individuals or that may damage or injure contiguous or adjacent land?
LeGrand: Most definitely. It is very dangerous.
Thompson: All right. Would you say, then, that this building exclusive of the foundation has
33%, one-third or more, damage to the exterior supporting walls?
LeGrand: That stricture far exceeds that.
Thompson: All right. Does it exceed, members of the building of 50% damage or deterioration
of the non -supporting enclosing or outside walls?
Page 11
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
LeGrand: Yes sir.
Thompson: Thank you. Would you say that this building has been damaged by other causes
rather than tire, so as to be dangerous to life, safety or the general health and
welfare of occupants of the Town?
LeGrand: I would say yes.
Thompson: Would you also say that this building has become so dilapidated and unsafe as to
utterly fail to provide amenities essential to decent living or that it is unfit for
human habitation?
LeGrand: Yes sir.
Thompson: Would you say also that this building, or parts of this building, to which it is
attached may fall and injure members of the public or property.
LeGrand: Most definitely.
Thompson: Would you say further that this building, the foundation that is not free of holes,
cracks and defects so as to support adequately the structure?
LeGrand: No, it's pretty crude.
Thompson: Thank you. Would you also say that this building does not have floor, exterior
walls and roofs that are free of holes and cracks so that it is reasonably protected
from the weather elements and danger of collapse.
LeGrand:(unintelligible)
Thompson: All right. Thank you. Those are elements which, when you consider them later,
establish the basis for a finding of dangerous building as determined in your
ordinance. Now, turning to the definition for urban nuisance, it's a property which,
structure which is, once again it's from your personal observation of the premises,
is reasonably dangerous to the physical health and safety of an occupant or other
person.
LeGrand: It is.
Page 12
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997.
Thompson: And it's in a state of disrepair such that it could reasonably be assumed to cause
injury, damage or harm, inconvenience to the community and for the use,
enjoyment of the property, and that it materially interferes with the property, the
comfort and enjoyment of the surrounding property.
LeGrand: Yes.
Thompson: And if you further conclude that this is a condition which would be substantially
offensive and annoying to persons of ordinary sensibilities, tastes and habits living
in the community.
LeGrand: Most definitely, sir.
Thompson: Those criteria meet the standard defined in the ordinance for urban nuisance. I
believe you also told me that we have the notice that was sent to the property
owners and the mortgage company by certified mail, return receipt requested.
You have given me the proofs of mailing and the green cards on that. I believe
with those criteria in the record before the Council, the standards that are set out
in the ordinance have been met at this part of the public hearing. If there's no one
else wishing to speak or answer questions, I don't think there's a need to bring
forward any further evidence for you to have the basis to go forward.
Mayor: All right. Let's give the attorney for the property owner an opportunity to rebuttal
if there is any rebuttal on his part. Sir.
Phillips: No thank you.
Carter: Thank you sir. Council, any questions? Kevin.
Carr: I had a question to Mr. Phillips. You indicated that you had contacted the
insurance company and the wheels have started in motion there?
Phillips: Yes.
Carr: Do you have a projected time frame where they can come up with their decision?
Phillips: It will take them at least a week and a half. I talked to them last week.
Carr: I guess my real question is why has it been so long to get an answer from them?
It's been a number of months .. what's the delay?
Page 13
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
Phillips: Well, the initial problem was that when the problems with the house first became
apparent the seller, Hawkeye Properties, indicated that they would take care of the
difficulties and for several months they seemed to be doing so. They did provide
alternative housing in that small residence I mentioned before for my clients and
indicated that he'd have experts out on the premises doing measurements,
conducting studies with instrumentation in the ground that's actually still present
now, attempting to discover what the difficulties were and whether or not they
could be remedied. And that process itself took several months. Now, I've only
been involved in this case for approximately two months, and during that time have
contacted all of the relative parties and attempted to get some immediate
resolution to the problem that concerns the City, the potential dangers involved
and that has taken some time. Everyone want to send their own engineers out;
everyone wants to get those reports, and on a project of this size there are several
different types of professionals that must be consulted. And, obviously, everyone
is consulting them with a view towards those being their- representatives in the
event of any litigation. So that unfortunately takes time.
Mayor: Do you think you could do it any sooner?
Glaspell: Mr. Phillips, one of the questions 1 have is, when this house was being purchased
by the present owners did they at any time have a building inspector, a private
inspector, come out and look the home over at all?
Phillips: There was an inspection done on the premises. There was an information sheet
provided by the seller that's a disclosure statement that lists any defects, problems,
non -working appliances or difficulties with the residence being sold. The
disclaimer actually stated that there had been foundation repairs and cosmetic
work performed in the last several months. It did not state that there was litigation
currently pending by the prior owners. It did not detail that the repairs were
inadequate and were not going to suffice. It also didn't indicate that there were
other engineering studies obtained by Hawkeye Properties that may have indicated
that the property could not have been repaired at that first instance. So there were
several potential misrepresentations that we are still evaluating and determining
what should be done and what can be done.
Glaspell: (question for Mr. Smith. Sir, from a loan perspective, does Chase require any kind
of a inspection at all, or is it handled (Iunintelligi& . Separate from that you
wouldn't require any kind of a building inspection or any ascertation of some kind
or another from the person purchasing the home to indicate to you that it was in
good shape?
Page 14
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
Smith: I'm not sure I follow exactly your question, Councilman, but the deed of trust does
set out certain specifics about —unintelligible)— to property inspection and I think,
I'm not certain when Chase Manhattan first became aware of this problem because, as Mr.
Phillips indicated, I believe that the seller of the property continued to pay the
mortgage. There was really no evidence, apparently, initially to the mortgage
company in the processing of the loan that there was a problem until, I think, just
recently. And as a result of this I think the inspections are taking place on behalf of the
mortgage company. Again, as I stated earlier, we are waiting to cooperate with
the property owner, who is in control currently, and I'm not aware of the loan being
in default. Unless there is some basis to proceed with foreclosure of the
property and take control of the property, we are waiting to work fully with the
property owner to try to resolve this matter.
Glaspell: Do you have any.... We've already heard that we don't seem to have any resolution
yet. Mr. Phillips, do you know when you might proceed with providing the
property owner some relief and giving him some help to move this thing forward?
Phillips: Well, again, from our perspective, we're wanting to work with the property owner
to check out these avenues that he's just outlined for the counsel as far as recovery
against insurance companies, rescission of contracts, any of those issues that
develop. Obviously, we're willing to deal with those, whatever occurrence may
take place. From this standpoint, it's almost really more whatever occurs with the
property owner in their efforts is how the mortgage company would react.
Glaspell: If they were to walk in tomorrow and hand you the paperwork and say we're not
going to do anything with this house, we're not making any additional payments on
it, at what point do you take action then?
Smith: As the attorney for the mortgage company, I'm sure the mortgage company has to
take some sort of action at that point. I can't tell you, frankly, what the mortgage
company would choose to do at that point.
Carter: Marshall.
Engelbeck: You know, I think a lot of this is it -relevant. You know, I think, I've got my mind
made up. I think I've been appalled for the last sixty days of the lack of a sense of
urgency on the part of the owner, the insurance company and Hawkeye Properties.
It only took us 89 hours to win a war, and here we are still arguing about who's
going to do what to who after about four months of listening to this. And I've got
my mind made up, I've nothing else to say.
Page 15
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
McCabe: I would just, well there are a couple of things. I would like to just reiterate that I
believe the point we are at is that we are in a public hearing just to make the
determination that we feel the ordinance provisions have been met to determine
that it is a dangerous building and an urban nuisance. And my understanding of
the procedure should be, we really should just be polling whether the Council feels
that those standards and requirements have been met and then close the hearing
and the Council, if we determine that indeed they have been met then the Council
is supposed to go back into regular session to decide what we would like to do
with the property. Because I do have questions regarding... I suppose as with
Marshall I have made up my mind. However, I do have a few legitimate legal
questions regarding the Town's action to be taken which I would like to hear legal
counsel's opinion on that. However, I'd like to move forward following the agenda
and make the determination in the public hearing phase whether or not the Council
has determined that we've met the ordinance and that it is a hazard or urban
nuisance that in no way indicates what the Council would do after that point. It is
just an indication that we follow the ordinance and can close the public hearing.
Thompson: Yes, ma'am. There's been testimony and discussion presented that is at the public
hearing (unintelligib� lel that would give you the basis in accordance with the
ordinance to take whatever action the Council determines once this hearing is
closed and we move into session (unintelligible)—.
McCabe: So it would be appropriate to possibly move forward with making the
determination by the Council members if we meet the ordinance, close the public
hearing, then go into the questions we have as Council members to make the
decision whether the Town can go in and take the house down...
Thompson: What action would next be appropriate.
McCabe: Which I would like to do, because I do have other questions and I don't feel this is
the appropriate time to ask them.
Carter: May. I'll give you that opportunity. All right. Hardy, then I don't think we have
anyone else that has indicated they wanted to speak on the public hearing. I think
the appropriate motion now - you help me with this - is to close the public hearing.
Thompson: Close the public hearing.
Carter: All right. Can I have a Council motion to close the public hearing?
Page 16
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
Glaspell: I make a motion we close the public hearing.
Carter: All right_ Is there a second?
Carr: Second.
Carter: Fine. Thank you Kevin. All in favor then.... All right. The public hearing is now
closed. Thank you. All right. Now, we are at Item 6, Council, and that's the
Council to determine the appropriate action of Ordinance 97-13 relating to the
abatement of dangerous building.
Thompson: Now that we've closed the public hearing, I think we may need to formally
convene a regular session now.
Carter: Okay, I'm sorry. All right. Council, motion to convene a regular session.
Glaspell: I'll make a motion to convene a regular session.
Carter: Second?
McCabe: Second.
TOWN CO UNCIL REGULA R SESSION
Carter: All right. Susan, I recognize. All in favor... All right, back in regular session.
Thank you Council. Now, if Hardy would, would be the, I think the evidence has
been presented relating to the danger of the building, of the home. The action now
would be, of course, the Council should determine if the conditions of the
ordinance have been met. Is that correct?
Thompson: Yes, Mayor, that's the first step.
Carter: Okay.
Thompson: And then upon making that determination there are several options that the
Council has going forward from there.
Carter: But the first motion would be...
Thompson: I don't even think you have to have a separate motion on that.
Page 17
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
Carter: Okay.
Thompson: I think having heard those issues, I think when you then make the order you would
recite the Council having heard evidence in the public hearing that it is a public
nuisance, it's an urban nuisance and it is a dangerous building. We then find... go
forward. (unintelligible)
Carter: Thank you. Is there anyone on the Council that
(Long gap at the end of side 1 and beginning of side 2 of the tape)
Carter: I don't hear anyone. Okay, so we... Then the Council believes the facility is unsafe.
Now the next action is, what... and that takes us to... I'm sorry... I believe it would
be Section 2, page 3 of the ordinance relating to the powers of the Council. And
there are several items there listed, Council, that you can direct to be complied
with. What is the Council's pleasure?
Engelbeck I'd like Hardy to (unintelligible)— had some options and I'd like to hear from Mr.
Thompson on this please.
Thompson: As the ordinance is drafted, the Council has the power to do any of the following.
First, is to require demolition of the building found to be a dangerous building or
an urban nuisance. Second is to require, as an alternative to demolition of such a
building, to require that it be repaired if there's a belief that it can be repaired.
Third, if the building is determined to be a dangerous building, and it is not vacated
which, of course, this building is vacated, you could order that any tenants or
people living in the building be removed from there, even at the Town's expense,
to relocate them. But that issue is not really before you. You can require that a
vacant structure or a vacant portion be securely closed and made safe. I believe in
this case that's not really a fact that's before you. You can require the correction
of a dangerous condition on any land within the "Town. We're not really talking
about that as much as that's for open pits or such. It's really a structure here. Or,
you could grant a variance which, if it's in your opinion that because of an
unnecessary hardship you would give a variance to this ordinance and take no
action. You have the power to do that. You can assess a civil penalty at this stage
for these violations not to exceed $1,000 a day, but if this is homestead not to
exceed $10 a day. And 1 would presume this probably still homestead, but I don't
know that and I Haven't asked Mr. Hill that.
Page 18
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
Carter: I think there's several things going to hinge on that. Hardy, give us a definition,
the owner does not reside in the property. We heard testimony that they do have
another living quarters. So, is this homestead or not homestead.
Thompson: I presume that a declaration of homestead has been filed and until it has been
revoked you can temporarily reside elsewhere while the house is subject to repairs
or maintenance or remodeling. So, I don't think that we would be in a situation
where you could assume that the homestead has been abandoned. I think that for
the Council's consideration tonight you must assume at this stage that that is still
their homestead.
Carter: Obviously, it takes a lot of teeth out of it, if it's homestead.
Thompson: Yes sir, it does. At this stage. But, if you turn over to Section 4, page 5, and read
through there, the ordinance there provides the following: that you can enter an
order that under Section A_2. requiring the owner and lienholder or mortgagee to
demolish the building under Section 2 within 30 days, unless there has been
evidence that you believe that they cannot credibly do this deal in 30 days.
If you enter that order and that order is not met, then under Section 5 on page 6,
failure to comply with the order is an offense which can be subject through another
proceeding to a penalty of up to a fine of $2,000 a day. You will see that over on
page 10, Section 10. Anyone who does not comply with the order can be subject
to a fine or a penalty of up to $2,000 a day. So, the answer is yes, there are still
teeth in the ordinance. It just would not be the civil penalty under Section 2.
McCabe: Mr. Thompson.
Carter: I wanted to ask Hardy, you know, this now... I still want to know, who is the
responsible party? I guess. Is it the mortgage holder or is it the, you know we've
heard some... the attorney for the property, who I believe, who, the registered
owner, I guess, (unintelligible)_ has not even the financial wherewithal to take the
facility down at the present time. What, you know, these fines are wonderful and
nice if you can collect them. But if you can't, you put a lien on the property, that
lien I would assume is secondary to the lien of the mortgage company?
Thompson: The provisions in the ordinance as it has been passed, the liens are superior to
everyone but the mortgage if this is a homestead.
Carter: Again, another reason to determine if it is a home ownership.
Page 19
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
Thompson: Right.
Carter: But, even with the expenditures, and I believe I heard the gentleman say something
like $35,000. We thought... so, if there, if the City continues the process and takes
the facility down, who do we look to for recovering of the expenses?
McCabe: I'd like to point out, because it has been incorrectly stated throughout the whole
process, that the only recourse we have is a lien against the property. That's not.
We specifically amended the ordinance that allows to bring civil action against the
responsible parties to recover the cost. You know, once again, the issue is once
you get a judgment, whether the person can pay. However, we do have that in
there where we have the right to bring civil action against the parties to recover -
whatever the Town Council expends to take the house down.
Carter: Against the mortgage company?
McCabe: See, it says the Town may bring a civil action to recover expenses incurred by the
Town in the relocation of tenants. The section prior to that section provides the
meat, so, I don't know whether it says the homeowners, the mortgage company or _
(unintelligible)
Carter: I think it's just important for us to establish who we can go after, because if there's
a big lien on the lot..
McCabe: The lien is useless... The lien in my opinion is useless at this point in time.
Carter: Particularly, because you've got very little value there.
McCabe: Right.
Carter: And the value is, you know... Obviously if they've got to be satisfied to what
numbers. They've got a $300,000 lien against the property. On a vacant lot, the
lot would be, in the best shape, wouldn't be worth $300,000.
McCabe: No, I realize that. But I also realize, I mean, there are some other questions that
need to be asked. As far as recouping the cost, that needs to be listed, you know,
in priority items and see what the Town wants to accomplish. We have other
obligations to residents that live here besides recouping the cost, you know, of
taking the house down, but also protecting others who live here.... I did have, if I
could, I have some other just little questions.
Page 20
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
During, I guess Mr. Phillips when he was talking, but I would like to ask Hardy,
Mr. Thompson, it has been indicated that part of the reason, aside from the
economics, that the house isn't coming down at this point in time is that there is
various investigations or due to lawsuits pending people are doing their fact
gathering... If we opt to go in and order the house down, say within 30 days, what
exposure do we have to the pending litigation in the way of that we've not allowed
them enough time to do their evidentiary discovery for all of the litigation? Does
that come into play at all?
Thompson: Yes, it does in this regard. If you enter an order requiring demolition and the
parties who have an interest in that property feel that that would jeopardize their
possible right of recovery against a third party, they do have the ability to go into
district court and appeal, and it's specifically set out in this ordinance, and appeal
the order which you would have entered requiring that demolition. And then that
appeal process would proceed in the local district court. And that would suspend
any requirement to do the demolition and the grounds for their appeal would be
that additional time is needed in order to protect those rights.
One of the things that we pointed out in an earlier informal meeting with the
citizens group is that, although it may be frustrating to have this process seem that
It is taking so long, the owners, all the parties who have a property interest in that
land and building, and it's a substantial amount of money that's involved here, have
a right of due process. And we've been trying to follow that step by step with the
ordinance, with notice, with hearings, the hearing tonight, with proceeding in
accordance with the ordinance where we are setting up what we hear from the
testimony would be a reasonable time. If they had come forward and said we
can't do it in 30 days, but we can do it 4.5 days or 60 days, we could take that into
consideration, and couching the term of the time period in which the demolition
order is effective. Because, once that date has passed, that's when the imposition of
the fines could occur.
McCabe: What, based on say the evidentiary issues, is there a outside time limit? I mean,
how .... obviously, it's not our intent to discourage or hinder anyone's due process.
"Thompson: Correct.
McCabe: However, we also have the flip side that we have to take care of issues within our
own area. So how do we determine what's the appropriate amount of time so that
we don't end up being taken to the district court?
Thompson: Well, in the ordinance, it provides that you can't go beyond 90 days.
Page 21
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE, COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
McCabe: Okay.
Thompson: In the ordinance, it further provides that unless there's evidence to the contrary the
order would be within 30 days it should be demolished. And so, the answer to
your question, I believe, the order, if the Council chooses to proceed to pass an
order requiring demolition of the property, the order should say within 30 days.
McCabe: Thank you.
Thompson: And then if they feel they can't do it within 30 days, they do have that right to
appeal to the district court.
Carter: But the maximum leniency would be 90 days?
Thompson: Yes sir. And I believe...
Carter: No, there's provisions that you could go beyond 90 days.
Thompson: But that's only if a detailed plan had been presented with a lot of facts and
circumstances and., You know, say that there were engineering steps that had to be
taken, concrete to be cured, piers to be drilled and all that. And none of this was
presented.
Carter: Susan, do you have any other questions?
McCabe: No.
Engelbeck I just sort of feel due process started when we passed the ordinance and we had
them notice of that. Our attorney called and contacted the people involved. That's
been at least 60 to 90 days. And, you know, I guess I don't have much patience.
Now, the other question I have is, when we say demolish, no where in the
ordinance can I find a definition of demolish.
Thompson: But I think it goes further and say "and make the premises safe".
Engelbeck: Make the premises safe. That could be just taking the building down and just let it
stay there. So I guess you'd say that would not be solving it.
Thompson: I'm not sure it would be safe to have left a lot of dangerous debris on the premises.
Page 22
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
Engelbeek I would view the criteria to be to have the lot cleared and removed and placed in
almost pristine condition.
Thompson: Or, at least, cleared and all the dangerous or hazardous materials removed.
Carter: Questions, (unintelligible)
Engelbeck: No.
Glaspell: One other question, Hardy. What Marshall was saying in removing or demolishing
the house and removing all dangerous debris, would that include the concrete slab?
Thompson: Not necessarily.
Carter: Can we order that? It's certainly going to be unsightly.
Thompson: Well, this is not an aesthetic ordinance. This is to protect health and safety. And
we can't order these property owners to create a park there. What we can do is
order them to remedy any hazard to anyone in the neighborhood, remove any
health hazards, remove any hazard to safety. That's the limit of the jurisdiction of
this ordinance.
Glaspell: So if the foundation should get all broken or cracked and raised and we've got
sharp areas sticking up or large holes then we...
Thompson: Particularly if there are any kind of holes, absolutely.
Carter: Can you require them to remove all improvements.
Thompson: The ordinance doesn't speak to that. I think that would be probably a little over
reaching. The further you go that way, the more ground you are giving to having
the appeal be successful. And overturning the order.
McCabe: Is the pool considered an improvernent, or is that...
Thompson: The pool is an improvement, but the pool is obviously a hazard to leave a ten -foot
hole sitting there.
McCabe: Okay. So as long as we can get it under the definition we can require them to
move it.
Page 23
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
Thompson: Or fill it and bury it or break it up and bury it.
Carter: We have letters out now regarding the pool and safety and a few other things that
they are violating other than this ordinance. Those are criminal kinds of concerns,
correct? And we can, if proven guilty and follow that tract, we can take that
person into court to swear out warrants if they don't appear and that sort of thing.
"Thompson: Let's proceed.....
Carter: The same sort of violation of this ordinance result in a criminal situations too? So
we can have more, more leverage against non-compliance than just recovery of the
property itself.
Thompson: Yes. That's what's provided for in Section 10 of the ordinance. And that would
take a seperate court proceeding just like violation of any ordinance does in
municipal court.
Carter: Kevin, you got anything?
Carr: No, sir.
Carter: All right. "Then now the motion should be whether we found the property safe or
unsafe in the discretion of the Council. Correct?
Thompson: Yes.
Carter: And I think the motion for that, just that wording, might be more appropriate and
then we'll turn to what the remedy would be. Will the Council be open to a
motion, please?
Engelbeck: 1 move that we determine the property at 241 Oak Hill be dangerous and an urban
nuisance and the structure be found to be an urban nuisance.
Carter: Okay.
Thompson: And a dangerous building.
Engelbeck And a dangerous building
Carter: All right. Thank you. The motion, is there a second please?
Page 24
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
Glaspell: I'll second that.
Carter: All right, Doug. Any discussion? All right. None. All in favor. That's
unanimous. The structure has been declared now to be unsafe. Now, the remedy,
Council, and I think that goes back to that section...
McCabe: Section 4
Thompson: Section 4 on page 4
Carter: Section 4. You can see what you can require the people, the ownership, to do.
Remove the facility, secure it and you can require them to do more than one thing.
Thompson: Yes sir. It's, they can secure the building from unauthorized entry and repair,
remove or demolish the building within 30 days.
Carter: Is there a motion to that effect, please ?
McCabe: I move we enter an order requiring the responsible individuals to secure the
building from unauthorized entry, and to repair, remove or demolish the building
and, ...is this where I can add the clear all hazardous materials and dangerous
debris... within the 30 day time frame.
Carter: Thank you, Susan. Is there a second?
Glaspell: I'll second that.
Carter: All right, Doug. Any discussion? All right. All in favor. All right. Now. We are
in completion of that. We've now, any... our notice has to go to where?
Thompson: You have concluded that section. Now, the ordinance requires that official notice
of this order be given to the lienholder and all parties who have an interest in the
property. And it prescribes exactly how that's to be done. The City Secretary
should forthwith do that.
Carter: And you will lead in that.
Thompson: I'll work with the City Secretary to see that...
Carter: And then they have 30 days from when?
Page 2.5
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
Thompson: I believe from when they receive the notice.
Carter: 30 days from the date of notice. All right. Then let's go, if you will please, to
presentations by the citizens. Anyone move to address the Council, anyone sign
up?
Mayor Carter and Council agreed to re -order agenda items to allow Citizens to make
presentations on TOWN COUNCIL TO DISCUSS "ROCKFEST `97" AND ITS EFFECT
ON THE CITIZENS:
PRE'SEW IA 110N, BY (7717- NS:
Tom Ritz, 3 Cimarron Ct., spoke briefly on his concerns about the effects of Rockfest `97. He
made a suggestion to extend some fencing to the wall to eliminate some of these problems.
Bob and Jodi Ashby, 4 Mesa Verde Ct., commended the Trophy Club Department of Public
Safety on the way the handled the traffic etc. from Rockfest `97, even though they were
overwhelmed. The Ashby's felt the blame lies on Fort Worth and the Speedway, they could have
provided trash cans and port -o -pots.
Kevin McCollough, I Mesa Verde Ct., presented to the Council an edited tape of 4 hours of
continuous taping. It gave a brief overview of some of the numerous persons who relieved
themselves in the general vicinity of their property lines.
Scott Wylie, 10 Pagosa Ct., asked the Concrete wall be extended, the fence was not adequate to
prevent above problems.
SIATT' 1?P,1'ORT:
Sergeant Kelly Johnson reported to the Council what steps were taken. The duration of the
problem was I 1 hours from start to finish. The Police Department calls for service associated with
Rockfest were.-
Abandoned
ere:
Abandoned Vehicles - 9 (vehicles towed)
Burglary of Vehicle
- 1 ( l arrest )
Disorderly Conduct
- 9 (4 citations written, I arrest)
Drug Paraphernalia
-2 (2 citations written)
Fight in Progress
-4 (Unable to locate)
Minor in Possession
- 5 (5 citations written)
Motor Vehicle Accidents
Major
- 3
Minor
-2
Noise Complaint - 1 (party at residence)
Page 26
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
Possession of a Controlled Substance:
Marijuana - 2 (2 arrests)
Methamphetamine -1(1 arrest)
Suspicious Person - 2 (unable to locate)
Theft unknown (Tetco (no reports))
Towed Vehicle - 2 (2 arrests)
Unlawfully carrying a weapon -1(1 arrest w/methamp
Warrant Arrest - 1 ('1 arrest)
Following Sgt. Johnson's presentation, Mayor Carter stated there would be no action taken on
this item tonight and that the Council will take all the suggestions under consideration.
PRESENTATIONS BY CITIZENS:
There were no reports by citizens for general purposes.
Mayor Carter and Council agreed to re -order agenda items to allow Citizens to make
presentations on STAFF 'TO DISCUSS THE "WEDDING CHAPEL" AND ITS EFFECT
ON THE CITIZENS. (COUNCIL MEMBER MCCABE):
There were no citizen presentations on this item.
Council Member McCabe asked if there were any options to restrict the traffic flow into Trophy
Club with relation to the Wedding Chapel. She also wanted the parking situation looked into, and
if we have any easement to plant trees to hide the Wedding Chapel from the residents. It was also
pointed out that the Wedding Chapel lists its address as Monterrey Dr., Trophy Club. The Council
would like to know if we can prevent that.
Council Member Carr would like to see the perimeter fencing continued at the Durango and
Monterrey Drives area to prevent access to/from Trophy Club.
No action taken. This item to be placed on August agenda.
Mayor Carter and Council agreed to re -order agenda items to allow presentations on TOWN
COUNCIL TO CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING A
REQUEST FOR MERITORIOUS EXCEPTION TO SIGN ORDINANCE NO. 95-11.
(METHODIST CHURCH):
Ron Lewandowski, 1424 Bellaire Dr., Roanoke; TX stated that he was available to answer any
questions the Council may have concerning the sign.
Page 27
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
Council Member McCabe asked why the sign does not meet the ordinance requirements and, if
there was a specific or compelling reason to deviate from the ordinance.
Cathy Morgas, Planning and Zoning Administrator, explained that the sign face itself meets the
ordinance requirements, but the brick around it makes it over the 24 square foot requirement.
On behalf of the Church, Mr. Lewandowski, agreed to shorten the sign from to 7' X ).5". The
applicant will not have to apply for the permit because the adjusted measurements will be below
the 24 square foot requirement.
No further action taken.
Mayor Carter and Council agreed to re -order agenda items to allow presentations on TOWN
COUNCIL. TO CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING A
REQUEST FOR MERITORIOUS EXCEPTION TO SIGN ORDINANCE: NO. 95-11.
(BAPTIST CHURCH):
Mayor Carter excused himself from the discussion of this item on the grounds that he is a very
active member of this church.
Walt Wood, 2 Alamosa, Trophy Club, TX, was available to answer any questions concerning the
sign at the Baptist Church.
During discussion, Mr. Wood reminded the Council that in Aug./Sept. 1990 the church had
received a variance to build this particular sign but they decided not to build it at that time.
Council Member Glaspeil stated that the sign ordinance had been amended in 1995.
Following discussion Council Member Glaspell moved to deny the request for variance to the
ordinance. Council Member Carr seconded; motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Carter announced a recess at 9:00 p.m.
Council reconvened at 9:10 p.m.
Mayor Carter and Council agreed to re -order agenda items to allow presentations on TOWN
COUNCIL. TO CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING A
VARIANCE OF THE FENCE ORDINANCE NO. 95-16 BY SANDRA PARKER OF 1038
TROPHY CLUB DRIVE:
Page 28
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July t5, 1997
Mrs. Parker gave her presentation on her request for the variance to the fence ordinance.
Following discussion, Council Member McCabe moved to grant a temporary ( ninety days )
variance to allow for landscaping to be planted to prevent the dog from jumping over the fence.
Council Member Emzelbeck seconded with the recommendation of a visit by the Code
Enforcement Department-, motion passed unanimously. This variance will end October 15, 1997.
STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Karen Sadri, Town Secretary, reported that the Finance Committee would be meeting on July 24,
1997 for a workshop.
Cathy Morgas, Planning and Zoning Administrator, stated that the P&Z will be having a Public
Hearing on August 5th, with the Town Council to address 2 issues.
Bill LeGrand, Director of Public Works, informed the Council that the completion date for the
intersection of Trophy Wood and Indian Creek Drives is scheduled for December 30th. The work
on Chisos at Village Trail and the work on Alamosa and Shasta Dr. will begin soon. The
scheduled curb repairs will start in two weeks.
Kevin Carr, Council Liaison to the Public Safety Committee, reported that the Public Safety
Committee is doing a study on a teen curfew. They will also be bringing their candidates for an
additional member before the Council at the August meeting,
TOWN COUNCIL TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB, TEXAS SUPPORTING ARCHITECTURAL AND
AESTHETIC ENHANCEMENTS TO ENTRANCES TO THE TOWN, WITHOUT THE
EXPENDITURE OF TOWN FUNDS; REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 96-29;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE:
Following discussion, Council Member McCabe made a motion to accept the resolution. Council
Member Glaspell seconded, motion passed unanimously.
TOWN COUNCIL TO DISCUSS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING
THE REGULAR AGENDA ITEM "PRESENTATIONS BY CITIZENS" AND REVISE
THE MANNER IN WHICH ITIS CURRENTLY HANDLED.
(COUNCIL MEMBER GLASPELL):
Page 29
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
Council Member Glaspell suggested that the Council change the format of the Citizens
Presentations to; general presentations to the Council as an agenda item and specific
presentations by citizens prior to the specific agenda item. Time allowed for these presentations
would be limited to three (3) minutes or if more than one (1) item a total of five (5) minutes.
They would be given one (1) courtesy warning prior to being stopped from speaking.
General consensus from the Council was to agree to these suggestions.
CONSENT AGENDA: ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER AGENDA ITEM 16,
CONSENT AGENDA, ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE TOWN
COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WELL NOT BE A
SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT
ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WELL BE
CONSIDERED SEPARATELY:
A. FINANCIAL REPORTS ENDING JUNE 30, 1.997
Council Member Glaspell moved to accept the consent agenda as written. Council Member Carr
seconded; motion passed unanimously.
PRESEN'T'ATIONS BY COUNCIL:
Council Member Engelbeck reported the strategy of the TCEDC to spend the money either in
maintaining a reserve or on the youth of the Town.
Council Member Glaspell reported that AI White, Chairperson of the Home Rule Committee,was
interviewing many outstanding candidates for the vacancies of the committee.
Council Member Carr asked for the Ordinances to be strictly enforced not only with developers,
but the residents too. In particular, tall grass and garbage at building sites.
Council Member Engelbeck feels the fi-ont entrance is not being maintained well and would like
Beck Properties to take more interest in it.
Council Member Carr would like to see the dump trucks and construction vehicles possibly
rerouted to save wear and tear on the T'own's streets.
no
Associates, Inc.
5 July 1997
Mayor and Council Members
Town of Trophy Club, TX
Please read and have entered into the Minutes of the Council
Meeting, 15 July:
I am disappointed at the time required to resolve the house
situation at 241 Oak Hill Drive. Each day that passes without
removing this dangerous structure causes additional hardship
on neighbors as well as a negative effect on property value.
I think the Staff should be instructed to proceed with whatever
action is necessary, including fining the Owner, seizing the
initiative to institute tear -down, and whatever other legal
activity needed to resolve this problem. This has gone on long
enough.
I anticipate significant tax rate increases will be required
to start needed infrastructure repairs/replacement (streets)
so we must be very watchful on budgeting for next year. I
point out that the low inflation rate being enjoyed would not
justify more than minimal hiring and salary increases, if any.
I cannot buy the idea that perhaps we can defer needed capital
expenditures until we are in shape desperate enough to justify
a large bond issue -" pay me now, or pay me later". we need
to plan now for known long term, requirements.
L,
Finally, it is time for Staff to resolve and budget for the
matter of animal holding/ sheltering. David Miller has gotten
a reasonable estimate of constructing a small facility at the
rear of the Police Building, and we should proceed without
further delay, as our present procedures are inadequate.
I am sorry I cannot be at the Meeting as I will be out of the
country. Thank you for your attention. I look forward to seeing
you all in August.
Edwin A. Decker, PE
Council Member
P.O. Box 24 ® Roanoke TX 76262 ® Phone/Fax: 817-430-0333
Page 30
PUBLIC HEARING/
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING/
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUDGET WORKSHOP
July 15, 1997
The Budget Workshop was cancelled prior to the meeting due to the potential for the public
hearing to be lengthy.
ADJOURN:
Council was reminded the next meeting was August 5, 1997 and was a Joint Public Hearing and
Budget workshop along with the regular session. Council Member Engelbeck expressed his
concern about the short length of time prior to the meeting.
Council Member McCabe moved to adjourn at 9:49 P.M. Council Member Carr seconded;
motion passed unanimously.
r
t �s
_ Maya
(Seal)
r
Town Secretary
8108 97 kig