Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents clash over 6602 setback, allege selective enforcement and safety risks
Summary
Residents traded accusations during citizen input about a roughly 220-square-foot structure at or near 6602 Warwick Drive, with neighbors alleging selective enforcement and safety risks and the property owner saying the structure was permitted and inspected; speakers urged a written fire-safety finding and adherence to prior board of adjustment decisions.
Denise Aljuhi told the Rowlett City Council during citizen input that the city was showing "favoritism" to a neighbor who built roughly a 220-square-foot structure without proper oversight and in violation of a five-foot setback, saying the board of adjustments and planning and zoning had denied relief previously and warning the council it risked legal liability if it overturned those decisions.
"We are not following the law if we do this," Aljuhi said, urging the council to "follow the law" rather than craft an exception for one property.
A second commenter identified by the chair as Hassan Ojuni said the council would be creating a new rule to bypass a board of adjustment denial and cited Local Government Code Chapter 211 and IRC R703 while raising fire-safety concerns. "By allowing this fix, the council is rewarding the neighbor who ignored the form of adjustment and and legal denial," he said and requested that the fire marshal and building official provide a written safety finding on whether the partially demolished structure and setback pose a hazard.
Property owner Mark Tashic used his three minutes to deny he was singled out and to list prior permits and inspections for his shed. "The city council legally passed the ordinance, city staff issued the permit and I complied with the requirements," Tashic said, calling repeated complaints over several years "a malicious ongoing harassment campaign." He said permitted features on his property have been inspected and maintained and asked the council to respect issued permits.
Neighbors who spoke said they want the dispute resolved without further acrimony. Dan Haney, who said he lives nearby, suggested practical fixes: "I think the big fix here is if mister Hussein would put a gutter on that side and move the AC unit to the other side of the property, he would have access to get through there and wouldn't have any problems." John Parigi, another resident who described helping restore a structure, said Tashic had cooperated with inspections and repairs and appealed for neighborliness.
The council did not take action during citizen input. No staff report, written safety finding, or council direction was recorded on the public record during the work session; speakers asked staff and the fire marshal to produce a written safety determination and to uphold prior board decisions but the transcript records those requests as public comments rather than formal referrals.
Background and next steps: speakers repeatedly referenced a prior board of adjustment denial. Citizens asked for a formal written safety finding from the fire marshal and building official and urged the council to rely on existing code (Local Government Code Chapter 211; IRC R703). The council did not vote or direct staff during the work session; any formal review or action would need to be initiated through city staff or a future agenda item.
