Half-built duplex in Dallas’ historic Elm Thicket neighborhood won't be torn down

Loading Video…

This browser does not support the Video element.

Emotional testimony in Dallas development dispute

A Dallas board heard from passionate homeowners in a historic Dallas neighborhood. A zoning mistake allowed builders to begin constructing new homes and duplexes that neighbors say they fought hard to keep out.

Residents in a historic Dallas neighborhood made emotional pleas before learning that at least one of the half-built duplexes violating the city’s zoning law would be allowed to stay.

On Tuesday night, the Dallas Board of Adjustment overturned a Dallas building official's stop-work order on the grounds of the building being a duplex. They determined the lot had been a duplex in the past, so the new zoning rules from 2022 didn't apply.

However, the builder will still have to spend $88,000 to reduce the height of the duplex and turn the roof into a pitch-style roof.

Last month, the Board of Adjustment told the developers and the city to work out a compromise solution. 

Developers, city questioned about duplexes built in violation of Elm Thicket zoning rules

On Tuesday, both the developers and the City of Dallas were in the hot seat to explain why duplexes are continuing to be built in Dallas' historic Elm Thicket neighborhood despite violating of new zoning rules.

Neither side was able to come to an agreement.

Residents in Elm Thicket, also known as Ellum Thicket, worked hard to get zoning changes passed in 2022 after noticing an influx of large builds leaving little green space, flat roofs, and duplexes.

The case was well publicized, with many developers participating in the process.

Then, the city failed to update the map that it used for issuing permits, leading to dozens of permits being issued in error.

Dallas City Hall mistake could cost Elm Thicket developer nearly half a million dollars

The city approved 19 building permits in violation of the Elm Thicket zoning restrictions. But with the city now ordering a stop to ongoing construction, developers are facing potentially huge financial setbacks.

The mistake was discovered in May, leading the city to issue stop-work orders.

There were 19 structures in violation.

"This is one of Dallas’ few remaining Freedman’s communities. Ellum Thicket fought for the changes to PD67 to preserve the character and history of our neighborhood. In this entire mess, the neighborhood is the only one who did everything right," said Amelia Mimi Perez, who lives in the area.

She got emotional talking about how it likely would have played out if it had happened in a more upscale Dallas neighborhood.

"The soul-crushing fact that my neighbors live with on a daily basis is that we all know that if these same structures had been built in Preston Hollow under the same circumstances, those stop-work orders would have been upheld at that first meeting. But what happened here is what always happens to marginalized Black and brown communities. Our voices are not heard," Perez said.

The developers said having to make the changes to their homes would force them to tear the structures down.

They argued the financial loss would put them out of business.

Elm Thicket residents at odds with developer after city mistakenly approves building permit

On one side, the developer says he already invested half a million dollars into a new duplex after the city gave him the greenlight. And on the other, neighbors say they shouldn't have to pay the price for the city's error.

"We didn't make the error. It seems like we've spent a lot of time on what my client should know and when he should have known it. But I would argue that the city staff is the party that has the higher burden level and that is paid. You know, building inspection runs on full cost recovery. They paid for a professional service that did him great injury," said Dallas Cothram, who represents the builder.

The Board of Adjustments had two cases scheduled for Tuesday.

There will be 17 more cases that will follow in the coming weeks.