Dallas Board of Adjustment delays decision on Dallas Parkway poker club appeal after hours of public comment

The Dallas Board of Adjustment, Panel A, on Tuesday held an appeal of a revoked certificate of occupancy for 17776 Dallas Parkway under advisement until Aug. 19, 2025, after nearly three hours of public testimony and argument from the applicant and the city.

Chairman David Newman, chairman of the Board of Adjustment, moved to postpone the hearing and “hold this matter under advisement to 08/19/2025.” The motion, seconded by Kathleen Davis, passed 4–1 (Neri, Dorn, Davis and Newman voting yes; Michael Hopkovich voting no).

Why it matters: Neighbors and neighborhood leaders told the board that the site — branded in recent years as Champions and proposed by Contender Dallas LLC to include poker gameplay — would bring late-night traffic, noise and public-safety problems next to the Bantry North neighborhood. Supporters of the business argued the operation could run lawfully as a members’ card club and would reuse a building that has sat vacant for years.

At the outset of public testimony, Newman reminded attendees that the appeal before the board is of a building official’s revocation. The building official’s position, represented by Assistant City Attorney Stacy Rodriguez, was that the city has denied or revoked certificates of occupancy for similar poker-room operations because they do not comply with Texas criminal law as currently interpreted. Rodriguez told the board, “The city's position on the legality of poker rooms has not changed,” and that the city will analyze any future court rulings before altering its advice.

Contender Dallas LLC was represented by attorney Tommy Mann, who asked the board to postpone the case to August because a related legal matter is pending before the Texas Supreme Court. Mann told the board the company had selected the later date to avoid presenting a full record now if an intervening high-court decision could “meaningfully” affect the legal framework. Mann said the company has prepared several hundred pages of materials and that “poker is not actually occurring at the property right now and would not be before August if it were postponed until then.” He also said the applicant would file its full hearing materials before the board’s August agenda deadline (Aug. 8).

Public comment was intense: the board recorded 17 speakers during public testimony. Multiple residents and civic leaders said they supported restaurant or retail reuse of the building but opposed a poker operation. David Walter, president of the Bantry North Homeowners Association, told the board he had collected “over 1,300 names” on a petition opposing any poker activity and said the site sits near neighborhood entrances and is within a few blocks of Mitchell Elementary School. Several speakers cited law-enforcement data they said link poker rooms to increased police activity; Kathy Usher and others referenced a Houston amicus brief to the Texas Supreme Court and a Collin County district attorney’s letter asserting poker falls within Texas’s statutory prohibition on gambling.

Not all testimony opposed the club. David Schnitzer, a commercial real-estate broker, said he had researched similar “member-club” operations and found them lawful and well-run in other Texas cities, and he urged the board to allow the business to operate rather than leave the building vacant.

What the board decided and next steps: The board voted to hold the appeal under advisement to Aug. 19, 2025. Under city staff guidance provided during the hearing, the CO revocation remains in effect during the appeal — that is, the business may not operate under the revoked certificate while the matter is pending. Newman and other board members warned the postponement is a one-time accommodation: the applicant was told to file any additional materials by the city’s Aug. 8 docket deadline and to arrive prepared to proceed on Aug. 19.

Legal and procedural context: Attorneys on both sides told the board that the central legal question — whether a commercial poker operation can comply with Texas criminal statutes prohibiting keeping a gambling place — is the same issue now at the center of litigation that has reached the Texas Supreme Court courts. Parties cited Texas Penal Code provisions and prior opinions in arguing their positions. The applicant and the city both acknowledged that any final ruling by the Supreme Court could change how the city enforces its building-code and occupancy rules in these cases.

Votes at a glance: The board voted 4–1 to hold the appeal under advisement to Aug. 19, 2025; mover: David Newman, second: Kathleen Davis; yes — John Neri, Michael Dorn, Kathleen Davis, David Newman; no — Michael Hopkovich. Newman said the hold is a one‑time postponement and directed the applicant to submit hearing materials by the August docket deadline (Aug. 8).

Going forward: The board will reconvene on Aug. 19 to hear the matter if it remains on the docket. Staff said any Supreme Court action that issues before the Aug. 8 docket deadline will be circulated to the panel; if no action is issued by that date, the applicant said it would be prepared to present at the August hearing, and the board will decide whether to proceed at that time.