[ Broken Windows ]
"Serving you!
"
"Dallas, the City that Works:
Diverse, Vibrant, Progressive
"

At least that's what its dallascityhall.com page says. Is the proof in the pudding? Let's see.

(some links open new window)

  We are watching our neighborhood succumb to blight. The superior strengths of the city services' maze and enforcement's indifference are overwhelming. This webpage details a carport-to-room conversion, still unresolved. (Inspector issues violation notice April 11, 2003 by certified mail [click on Page 1 of #03-00468984].) Is code compliance the biggest joke on the block? We're not laughing. For a quick over-view click here.
I don't need no stink'n fence permit!
The Purpose of a Building Permit  

  A building permit gives you, your insurance company, your neighbors and the city assurance that specific minimum standards are met in constructing, altering, or repairing your home by complying with your city code. These standards are based on well-established health, safety, and environmental considerations intended to protect the integrity of the buildings, safety of inhabitants, and the welfare of the public.

When do I need a permit?


"The City of Dallas Building Inspection Division improves the quality of life for Dallas citizens by ensuring compliance with established construction standards and by enforcing City codes."

NEWS: The City of Dallas recently had corruption within Department of Code Compliance (DCC) of inspectors making false reports on cases never having been done, et cetera, and other compliance employees issuing fraudulent citations. It was all over the local news...a few heads flew here and there and the good citizens of Dallas have been led to believe that everything is copasetic. Nevertheless, "[t]he real culprit [was found] to be Kathy Davis and her badly run, screwed-up-as-a-junkpile department. [...] She imposed a quota system that was all about paper numbers--an activity count she could take to the city manager and to the city council to show what a busy bee she was."

"The structure must be in compliance with the required setbacks regardless of whether a permit is required or not."

You can review the Service Request Summary Report for yourself. Please exercise caution when reading these reports. They may leave you in stitches laughing or could give you a headache but not both. A waste of taxpayers money? You decide.

3-1-1 Service Request Summary Report (SRSR) obtained under the Texas Open Record Act.
Service Request Summary Report 04-00338739
Service Request Summary Report 03-0046898

To recap: April 2003 a carport was converted to a room, without permit as required by the City. After nearly three years of Code fumbling around, the owner was finally cited for not obtaining a permit and the case was closed. As a result of Code Compliance’s handling of this matter so far I’ve reached the following conclusions: (1) Build whatever you like because (2) Code will drop the ball, and (3) you might get cited but (4) since nothing will come of it (5) you never need to get a permit.

This conversion is reflected in Dallas Central Appraisal District as an "ENCLOSED PATIO".

Recently I received information regarding sideyards/carports from the City Attorney's office; see Volume III, Sec. 51 A-4.401-4.403, Part II of the Dallas Development Code. Yard, Lot, and Space Regulations.

Division 51A-4.400.  Yard, Lot, and Space Regulations. (click to see photocopy)
Sec. 51A-4.401.      Minimum front yard.
Sec. 51A-4.402.  
Minimum side yard. (cont. on 4.403)
Sec. 51A-4.403.  
Minimum rear yard.

Sec. 51A-4.402
is explicit that a special exception (by the board) may be granted for a carport. There are no exceptions for a room or converting a carport to a room, and storage of items other than a motor vehicle is prohibited in a carport.
It will be interesting to see how the city of Dallas handles and resolves this blatant abuse of the city code and whether incompetence is at the root of this absurd delay in building inspection compliance.

Update: 12/17/04 12:30 AM Follow up call to confirm status of service call #04-00338739 with 311, Travis. Travis commented that's an old number since they're "in the 400s now" and asked how long had it been since it was called in. Status of call was that Joe Lee reinspected the site on Dec. 6. Code Enforcement (clerical) issued a violation notice on 12/10/04 by regular mail. Scheduled for re-inspection on the 16th. Inspector assigned to call is Joe Lee. Travis commented that if it was reinspected on the 16th nothing had been entered on it yet (for his access). (Travis also volunteered that the call had been forwarded to a 311 troubleshooter, Rock Richardson, a coordinator between 311 and Code Enforcement. Richardson addresses calls that seem to be slow resolving.)

Update: 10/31/04 11:15 PM Follow up call to confirm status of service call #04-00338739 with 311, Travis. Travis stated status of call is "open." On October 22, "location said no evidence of construction; no evidence of repair." Call was "escalated" from Inspector Joe Lee to the Manager, Ron Robinson, and from the Manager to the Assistant Director. Travis said he thought that was S.E. Div. Assist. Director for Building Inspection. (Bear in mind that Joe Lee is the same City of Dallas employee (click here to read excerpts from below) that said a building permit was required and that he had issued citations yet later this inspector down-graded conversion to mere "remodeling." Homeowner was aware a building permit was required no later than April 3, 2003. Now there is NO EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCTION OR REPAIRS. Inspector Steve Cunningham had initially taken digital-photos when structure conversion was merely framed-out 2x4s , and wrote up citation/notice on April 2, 2003 - this man actually does his job only to have it undermined after he is transferred. Nevertheless, it appears that per Sec. 51A-4.402 and Sec. 51A-4.403 only allow a carport.)

12:00am, Sunday, Oct 31, 2004, Renee 3-1-1, stated that Joe Lee took pictures of 2711 Healey 22 Oct and there is no evidence of construction or repairs made - owner stated that he tried to obtain a permit.

4:38pm, Monday, Oct 11, 04 Craig 3-1-1 - no follow up - new service #362117 previous service #04-00338739 was assigned to Joe Lee - his super is Ron Robinson 214-670-6964. (311 operator apologized for the assignee not following up. I thanked him but commented that he only takes the calls.)

Update: September 2, 2004 — 3-1-1 has been re-called per the prosecutor's suggestion.

- 1:15pm, Tuesday, Sept. 21, 2004, 3-1-1 Reene - no building permit 2711 Healey, Service #04-00338739.

- 11:54am, 09/29/04 - 3-1-1 - Nicole - no update -DCC has 10 days to respond.

Update: It's now September 2, 2004 — 17 months later.  A prosecutor mentioned the other day to just call 3-1-1 and start from scratch — (resident was notified by Code Compliance in April 2003 that this construction required a building permit) and the City of Dallas has done nothing to follow up on this construction. The city prosecutor has talked with three city building inspectors, including District Manager, who has refused to keep several appointments with prosecution to resolve this matter. The saga continues...

The following is my telephone call journal regarding the conversion of a carport to a room located at this residence in Dallas, Texas. The initial call to 311 was made on April 1, 2003. For ease of reference, calls are listed starting with the most recent communication and ending with the history that necessitated this journal. Call 311, the Service No. is 03-004 68 984. I mailed a letter to Kathleen Davis, Department Director of Code Compliance, regarding the below on 15 SEP 03 and cc'd Assistant City Manager Charles W. Daniels. To-date, , I have not heard a peep from either.

Background: Was talking with a roofing contractor who commented on a local residential construction, a carport being converted to a room, that had no permit posted. Was advised I should look into the matter as such projects are supposed to meet certain criteria to maintain city standards for residential construction projects. Such standards have far-reaching implications including but not limited to insuring that the construction not present a safety risk, i.e., is not a fire hazard due to non-code compliant wiring; maintaining neighborhood property values through some conformity of construction based on proper plans and execution of same; and even allowing the City to capture its tax revenues by the accurate portrayal of square footage of a residence. It’s my understanding this is why we have code compliance. This page was created so you could follow the saga as it winds its frustrating way through the maze of City services. It is an amazing tale indeed and has yet to reach “the end” as you will see.

Tuesday, August 19, 2003, 1:16pm, spoke with Elaine at One-Stop-Permit (214) 948-4480. She re-confirmed what construction would necessitate obtaining a building permit - “anything structural,” any wall going up, door, window - anything structural. Elaine was emphatic in stating she knew of no reason why a structural change, i.e., three walls going up, a window and door, would be considered by Code Compliance (Enforcement) as merely “remodeling” and not necessitate a permit. Elaine gave me Charley Webster’s name (Residential Consultant - 214-948-4376), and told me I could talk with him, but he'd say exactly the same thing.

Monday, August 18, 2003, 8:56am, called Terry Kenworthy (Urban Rehabilitation Board) 214-670-4848 and spoke with Dorthy, Mr. Kenworthy's secretary. I gave Dorthy my phone number and asked that he return my call. Dorthy asked the nature of my call, and I said I wanted to know what the criteria was for residential construction that would necessitate a permit. [Call not yet returned.]

Sunday, August 17, 2003, called 311 and asked if copies of 311 records are available; answer, no.

Friday, August 15, 2003, 12:26pm, spoke with Vernon at One-Stop-Permit (214) 948-4480 and asked what the criteria was for residential construction that would require a building permit. Vernon stated that if a wall, door, or window was in the plans then a building permit is required under the Dallas City Code. I asked Vernon if residential construction that met that criteria was occurring, or was complete, would there be any reason why Code Enforcement should state that no building permit was required for same. He flatly said, "No." I asked Vernon if it was custom, or protocol, for a building permit to be issued after construction and painting were complete. Again, Vernon said, "No," because there would be no way to see if construction was up to code. Holes in sheet-rock would need to be made to see the structure, etc. Vernon did say that "shade tree" construction occurs “a lot” but usually is caught at some time. I also asked him if a building permit had ever been issued to this residence, and he said, "No."

Friday, August 15, 2003, 10:16am, 311 (Service #03-004 68 984), spoke with Alberta who stated that J.L. (Joe Lee), District Manager, will be inspecting structure at residence on August 15th because there is
one strip of wood that needs painting. [Nevertheless, as of November 8, 2004, the entire rear wall (with door) has yet to be painted.] Her computer indicated that District Manager had visited on August 8 and 10 and that there is no evidence of construction that requires a building permit; that no building permit is required for that construction.

Monday, August 11, 2003, 1:28pm (Service #03-004 68 984), called for Mr. Terry Kenworthy 214-670-4848 but talked with Cathy Richards who indicated he was not available. Ms. Richards was given my phone number and said he'd call. [Call not yet returned.]

Thursday, August 7, 2003, 10:48am (Service #03-004 68 984), called Code Compliance at 214-670-5708 and talked with Ginger. I asked what procedure follows after a resident receives notice for non-compliance in getting a building permit (carport-to-room conversion). Ginger brought the info up on 311 and doesn't understand why this hasn't reached a conclusion yet. Ginger will turn this over to Manager Over Inspectors, Mr. Terry Kenworthy at 214-670-4848. (The MOI position is normally held by Patricia Hernadez who is on vacation).

Friday, August 1, 2003, 4:00pm, called One-Stop-Permit (214) 948-4480; no building permit ever issued for residence.

Friday, August 1, 2003, 3:33pm (Service #03-004 68 984) called 311, spoke with Mary who said residence was reinspected July 21st and notice posted - no building permit and exposed wood exist. Inspector knocked on door and had no answer. (Note: Initial 311 call made on April 1, 2003 and violation still exists after 4 months without a building permit and several notices to obtain one, and construction is complete except for painting.) I neglected to get Inspector's name and called 311 back and spoke with Renee - she said reinspection occurred July 31st by Joe N. Lee.

Wednesday, July 16, 2003, 9:30am-9:53am (Service #03-004 68 984), talked with Joe Lee. He said he'd been on vacation, and that he had put a notice on conversion property June 30th. Mr. Lee asked if I was a neighbor. I did not comment but stated I was following up on status. Mr. Lee said that Kathy Davis issued an unpublished departmental policy directive that citations are no longer sent certified mail - that code violators (in this situation) must be personally tracked down and served citation (ticket). I asked if this could be compared to a high weeds violation. He said with high weeds notice by certfied mail with 10 days to cut - if not in compliance then city cuts and puts a lien on property, not a fine. Later, Lee says they do put a fine and then a lien. He commented that looking for a resident makes it hard on him because catching the resident at home will be difficult, a sort of 'catch me if you can' scenario. He asked if I could keep an eye out for him, like let him know when resident might be around. I commented that any conclusion on this matter could take months, and Lee mentioned again that this would be hard on him and that he might need to put in over-time. He said something about a warrant and resident could be arrested - I wasn't clear on exactly what that meant or entailed. (At 10:10am a Patrick Shaw called to ask if someone at this number called him. I said I'm pretty sure no one did and asked if he was with the city, and he said yes. I had initially called Joe Lee's cell phone number (214-957-8098) and let it ring a few times then, as it was going to voice mail, I hung up to call his other number. Maybe Shaw was just a wrong number or he uses Mr. Lee’s cell phone.)

Wednesday, July 9, 2003, 10:05pm (Service #03-004 68 984) 311, Elaine said on May 29 a second notice was mailed for no permit; June 9th update but nothing posted - Steve Cunningham 214-957-9723, Joe Lee 214-671-9109 or 214-957-8098.

Friday, June 20, 2003, 8:44am - called One-Stop-Permit (214) 948-4480 and no permit issued for residence.

Thursday, June 19, 2003, 1:07pm, called Code Compliance (214-670-5708) for update on carport-to-room conversion without a permit (Service #03-004 68 984). Spoke with Elizabeth who said Joe Lee (214-957-8098) is handling it. Called Joe Lee at 1:11pm. Lee stated that this wasn't his jurisdiction; he didn't do this and I should contact building inspection. Nevertheless, he said he was shown (listed) to be the one handling this and that he did recall going out there (residence). He said that outside of a few holes that needed patching it all looked okay to him. Mr. Lee paused for a moment and then, in effect, said, 'Yep, looks like they were never issued a permit'. Just the same, Mr. Lee stated he'd issue yet ?another? citation. I asked should I follow up with 311 or him after 10 days. Mr. Lee said to call him.

Wednesday, May 28, 2003, 2:38pm, update 311, Ms. Corbet said sent certified mail April 1 and certified mail again for violation on April 10 & 11 - 30 days to respond - handling case now is Mr. Joe Lee 214-957-8098.

Friday, May 23, 2003, 8:13am, (Service #03-004 68 984), got recording at 214-948-4282 - San Migual? - no Steve Cunningham - left message and phone number to call. No one has returned call to date.

Tuesday, May 13, 2003, 12:33am, 311 update, an April 10th citation - supposed to reinspect May 4 - Steve Cunnigham 214-948-4282 (Service #03-004 68 984).

Friday, April 18, 2003, 1:45pm - 311 follow up on carport conversion - Mr. Cunningham sent certified mail, case still open.

Wednesday, April 2, 2003, 9:15am - talked with Steve Cunningham and he said he'd try to be out this week to check on conversion. Steve said that District 3, et al, are being merged into a larger district, consolidating. Today Mr. Cunningham visited residence and took pictures of the construction in progress.

Wednesday, April 2, 2003, 1:35pm, Mr. Cunningham said that construction that extends the square footage of the living area requires a building permit. Steve Cunningham, Inspector, Code Enforcement (214-957-9723).

Tuesday, April 1, 2003, 8:50am, called 311 and talked with Joyce regarding carport-to-room conversion without a building permit; Service #03-00468984.


“Few things are harder to put up with than the
annoyance of a good example.” — Mark Twain


 

!_NEW_!
FENCE PERMIT
You don't need no stink'n permit!

Is the City of Dallas Concerned About Maintaining The Property Value of Taxpayers?

This residential carport-to-room coqnversion construction is sent Notice via Certified Mail early April 2003 to obtain a building permit but, according to 311, by mid-August 2003 the conversion has become "remodeling.” 311 now states that the conversion requires no building permit per the District Manager. However, One-Stop-Permit continues to advise that construction that includes a wall, window, or door fulfills the requirements for necessitating a building permit.

->> 10/31/04, 3-1-1 follow up - city inspector now reports, "no evidence of construction or repairs made." It's magic!  

It appears the citizens of Dallas are left to guess at which department is correct. Hmm, maybe there's an exemption of some kind that I have not been made aware of? This conversion either contains walls, a door, and a window or it doesn’t. It appears that there is no code enforcement, and the City of Dallas isn't interested in maintaining taxpayers' property value.


Below on August 15, 2003, 311 reported that inspector noted only "one piece of wood needed painting."
lots of exposed wood here, huh. 311 stated inspector saw no evidence of construction. Note new structure, paneling, door, exposed wood, and material to left of door.
Photo taken 11/08/04 - (rear view) and it remains in this condition to-date, .

October 31, 2004 - Note the evidence of construction materials to left of door. Click image for larger view.


Click here to see
BEFORE and  AFTER

   
 >Illegal Storage<
 

When Is A Building Permit For Residential Construction Required? What Is The Criteria For Obtaining A Building Permit?

*BEFORE     and  AFTER
PHOTOS of Residential Carport-to-Room Conversion


City of Dallas Building Inspection Division

Dallas Central
Appraisal District


Residence carport before conversion was without any wall(s), door(s) or window. Note: View from street you can easily see straight through carport to backyard
.

Before photo on left is posted under the "fair use" doctrine. If the copyright holder does not agree that use is for a public purpose then please contact the webmaster with proper credentials and evidence of ownership and it will be removed.

Is the City of Dallas Concerned About Maintaining The Property Value of Taxpayers?


Examples of several Texas cities' building permits/codes -

Mansfiield
Carrollton
Salado
Mesquite
Cedar Hill
Arlington

Building Permits by State

 
 


Articles of Interest

City vs. Citizen
One man's stand against the bureaucrats from hell

Kick Down
A silly boss--not civil service--is the problem with the city's code department


Broken Windows

More of the Same???
"triple-checked"

12/17/04 4 PM Call to Ron Robinson regarding status of investigation. Robinson gave the phone to Joe Lee after a brief pause and Mr. Lee said he was scheduled to reinspect on Dec. 20th. With reference to 2717, Mr. Lee commented that it would be measured and "triple-checked" as he initially thought it was under 200 sq. ft. and then on the second visit determined it was over 200 sq.ft. Lee returned the phone to Robinson who, when asked about the minimum side yard requirement and whether a carport is either supposed to be a carport or not, responded with questions about whether it was in a historic district/conservation district. He also stated at one point that they needed permits and to submit plans and at another point said that they were not in compliance and could go before the Board of Adjustment to request a variance at which point there will be notice of hearing regarding same.
Perusal of One Stop Permits for Dec. shows that a plumbing permit no. 0412131057 was issued 12/13/04 for 2717 for a "gas leak." Still no permit reflected for 2717 rear yard structure.

This conversion is not reflected in Dallas Central Appraisal District.