Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Weatherford council denies residency exemption under child-safety-zone ordinance

3513630 · February 25, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council denied a request by Darren Garrett for an exemption from the city's child-safety-zone ordinance; staff recommended denial and Garrett said he had signed a lease but had not yet moved in and cited confusion over online information.

The Weatherford City Council on Feb. 25 denied a request by Darren Garrett for an exemption from the city’s child-safety-zone ordinance, which makes it unlawful for a registered sex offender to establish residence within 1,000 feet of designated child-safety zones. Staff recommended denial and the council voted to deny the exemption; the motion to deny was made by the mayor and seconded by Councilmember Zach Smith.

City staff told the council the child-safety-zone rule was adopted in May 2019 and measures distance in a straight line from property line to property line. Garrett spoke from the public podium and said he had applied for an exemption because he had signed a lease and planned to move into the residence but believed online resources did not make the ordinance clear. “The information available there does not reference the city code,” Garrett said, referring to the city's website.

Garrett told council he had been working with a caseworker and that his funding from the Supportive Services for Veteran Families program led to a lease arrangement; he said he had not yet moved in and that the lease start date was imminent. Council members recorded no further questions on the item. The mayor moved for denial; council recorded the denial on the record. The transcript contains inconsistent spellings for the property address in the record (the staff report lists “East Ackard Street” while Garrett referred to “East Acre”), which staff and council did not resolve during the meeting.

The council took no other action on the matter; the denial means the requested exemption was not granted and the applicant’s planned residence remains within the 1,000-foot restriction as applied by city code.