Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hurst business owner disputes code violations and closure; city attorney cites safety violations
Summary
A Hurst business owner, who says the city unlawfully closed her wedding photography venue, urged council for relief; city staff and the city attorney said inspections found multiple uncorrected building- and electrical-code violations and no certificate of occupancy for the suites.
A Hurst business owner told the City Council her wedding photography and event venue was unlawfully closed and asked the council to enforce consistent treatment and provide requested public records. City staff and the city attorney said inspections found unpermitted construction, electrical hazards and the absence of a certificate of occupancy for the suites, and staff said the city has sought repeated inspections to confirm corrections.
The speaker identified herself as the director of Farangue Photography Incorporated (address provided as 755 Mid Cities Boulevard) and said she provided 54 pages of documents to the city showing prior permits and compliance history. She said inspectors closed her business after citing five immediate violations, including allegations related to alcohol service and uncompleted cooking equipment. She requested due process and asked that the council and city provide public information she said the city had not returned following public-information requests since October.
The city attorney told the council the code issues date to an initial notice of violation and followed an October 2024 inspection. The attorney said a Nov. 20, 2024 letter to the business stated there was no certificate of occupancy for either suite and that, as of that date, the city had received no substantive response addressing the letter. The attorney listed outstanding violations the inspection identified: installation of mechanical equipment without permits; installation of plumbing fixtures without permits; electrical work performed without permits, including open junction boxes and uncovered receptacles; equipment not wired to be safely used; and removal of a demising wall creating an illegal connection of two suites. The attorney described those conditions as threats to public safety and said the building-permit process is designed to screen applications and confirm compliance through inspections.
The city attorney further said that since late January 2025 the city made at least six requests to schedule an inspection; according to the attorney, inspections are needed both to confirm that violations have been corrected and to obtain a certificate of occupancy. City staff told the council they have worked with the city attorney and believe they have acted appropriately to protect public health and safety.
The business owner disputed the city's account, saying she had a certificate of occupancy for Suite 300 that predated the November 2024 letter and that she had hired electricians and contractors to address issues. She said she was willing to allow an inspection and asked the city to set an inspection date; the city requested availability and emphasized inspection is required to verify corrections. The owner said she intends to pursue litigation if necessary.
Why it matters: The dispute involves code enforcement, public-safety concerns, an alleged lack of timely responses to public-information requests, and potential litigation; council members said they cannot intercede directly in code enforcement and directed parties to the city attorney and inspection process.
