Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
DALLAS COUNTY
15 CITS-ESERVE 4/24/2018 11:10 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
COME NOW, Plaintiffs to file this petition against the defendants, all
of whom are members of the Dallas City Council. The plaintiffs seek
The plaintiffs take this action after the defendants illegally damaged
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 1
show that the defendants are acting beyond the boundaries of state law by
I. DISCOVERY-CONTROL PLAN
Rule of Civil Procedure 190.3 and affirmatively plead that they seek
II. PARTIES
resident of Dallas, Texas. The organization has more than 2,000 members.
at his usual place of business, Dallas City Hall in Dallas County, Texas.
served at his usual place of business, Dallas City Hall in Dallas, Texas.
served at his usual place of business, Dallas City Hall in Dallas, Texas.
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 2
7. Defendant, Casey Thomas II, Councilman of the City of Dallas, may
be served at his usual place of business, Dallas City Hall in Dallas, Texas.
be served at his usual place of business, Dallas City Hall in Dallas, Texas.
served at his usual place of business, Dallas City Hall in Dallas, Texas.
served at his usual place of business, Dallas City Hall in Dallas, Texas.
served at his usual place of business, Dallas City Hall in Dallas, Texas.
served at his usual place of business, Dallas City Hall in Dallas, Texas.
served at his usual place of business, Dallas City Hall in Dallas, Texas.
served at his usual place of business, Dallas City Hall in Dallas, Texas.
served at his usual place of business, Dallas City Hall in Dallas, Texas.
served at his usual place of business, Dallas City Hall in Dallas, Texas.
served at his usual place of business, Dallas City Hall in Dallas, Texas.
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 3
18. Defendant, Philip Kingston, Councilman of the City of Dallas, may be
served at his usual place of business, Dallas City Hall in Dallas, Texas.
III. JURISDICTION
19. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit under TEX.
NAT. RES. CODE ANN. § 191.173(a), because the Court is a court of competent
20. As citizens of the State of Texas, the plaintiffs have standing. Id.
21. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants, who are all
residents of Dallas and the events of the dispute have all occurred in Dallas.
IV. VENUE
22. Venue is mandatory in Dallas County under TEX. NAT. RES. CODE
ANN. § 191.173(a), because the activity that plaintiffs are seeking to restrain
will take place in Dallas County. The Dallas City Council is threatening to
Lee,1 formerly located in Robert E. Lee Park, and to remove the plinth and
seating area to Proctor’s Lee, located in Robert E. Lee Park (also known as
Oak Lawn Park), all located in the City of Dallas, Dallas County, Texas.
V. FACTS
A. Pioneer Cemetery
1"Lee" so italicized refers to the statue "Robert E. Lee and Young Soldier" also
known as "Proctor's Lee" or "the Lee statue" and not Lee Park.
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 4
Marker No. 68182, which was posted by the Texas Historical Commission
24. Pioneer Cemetery holds ten other sites of historic interest, creating
a. the grave of Barton Warren Stone, No. 6890, posted in 1986, for his
b. the grave of James Martin Patterson, No. 11834, posted in 1996, for
c. the grave of John Jay Good, No. 11825, posted in 1996, for his
d. the grave of James Knox Polk Record, No. 6835, posted 1986, for his
Attorney;
e. the grave of John W. Lane, No. 13055, posted 2004, for his
f. the grave of John McClanahan Crockett, No. 6661, posted 1966, for
g. the grave of James Latimer, No. 6757, posted 1968, for contributions
2The documentation regarding this marker is available by the THC website at the
https://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/Details/5113006818/print
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 5
h. the grave of Nicholas H. Darnell, No. 6677, posted 1986, for his
Representatives;
i. the grave of Pierre Dusseau, No. 13176, posted 2003, for his
j. the grave of Trezevant Calhoun Hawpe, No. 11828, posted 1999, for
and specially protected feature on a historic site, the THC must first approve
27. On April 13, 2018, the Dallas City Council published its agenda for its
April 25, 2018, meeting.4 Agenda item No. 34 was proposed by the “Mayor
3TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. § 191.093; Op. Att’y Gen. H-250 at 2 (1974).
4The Agenda is publicly available online, identified as the Council Agenda, City of
Dallas, Texas (April 13, 2018), located at:
http://dallascityhall.com/government/Council%20Meeting%20Documents/age
nda_042518.pdf.
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 6
removal of The Confederate Monument located in Pioneer
Cemetery; to obtain a Certificate of Demolition from the
Landmark Commission; and authorizing the City Manager to
transfer funds or appropriate funds from excess revenue or
contingency funds, as necessary, to remove The Confederate
Monument and the Robert E. Lee and Confederate Soldier
sculpture plinth and seating area, and to create a proper
memorial of the lynching of Allen Brooks, subject to future
City Council approval. . .
28. On April 25, 2018, the Dallas City Council is expected to approve item
Cemetery, the sale of Proctor’s Lee statue, and the removal of the plinth and
29. The defendants did not obtain and have not obtained a THC permit in
connection with its actions to alter these historic sites protected by state law.
30. Lee Park, recently renamed Oak Lawn Park, is a State Archeological
Landmark because it is a site of historic interest. TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN.
32. Since the statue of Robert E. Lee and Young Soldier, its plinth and
seating area are a prominent feature on a historic site, any alteration of the
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 7
site or removal of the statute requires prior approval by the T. TEX. NAT.
33. The defendants did not acquire a THC permit to remove the Lee
statue.
34. Public records show that neither councilmember Sandy Greyson, nor
Schultze and Stephen Young, Council Votes to Remove Robert E. Lee Statue,
http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dallas-council-votes-to-pull-robert-e-lee-
off-his-high-horse-9847743.
35. Since the Mayor and other City Councilmembers voted to remove the
36. The Texas Antiquities Code protects and preserves historic and
TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. § 191.002; Op. Att’y Gen. H-250 at 2 (1974).
37. Sites of historic interest are the sole property of the State of Texas
and may not be destroyed, nor removed without a permit from the THC.
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 8
that are located in, on, or under the surface of any lands
belonging to the State of Texas or by any county, city, or political
subdivision of the state are hereby declared to be state
archeological landmarks. . . .
TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. § 191.092(a); Op. Att’y Gen. H-250 at 2 (1974).
TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. § 191.093; Op. Att’y Gen. H-250 at 2 (1974).
38. Designated sites of historic interest are landmarks under the Texas
39. The Texas Antiquities Code provides for criminal penalties for
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 9
(b) Each day of continued violation of any provision of this
chapter constitutes a separate offense for which the offender
may be punished.
TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. § 191.171; Op. Att’y Gen. H-250 at 3 (1974).
VII. CLAIMS
40. The above facts and laws are incorporated by reference in all claims.
41. By failing to obtain approval from the THC before voting to alter
191.092(a), and which holds ten other sites of historic interest, creating one
of the largest historically protected areas in Texas. See Op. Att’y Gen. H-250
at 2 (1974).
42. The Dallas City Council cannot pretend to be unaware of these facts,
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 10
43. The defendants have not sought a THC permit prior to publicly
44. Because the defendants seek to alter these protected sites in a way
that cannot be repaired, their planned violation of state law will result in
as a historic site by the State of Texas, which owns it. The defendants act in
direct conflict with state law, which is designed to protect historic sites from
the Mayor and City Council of Dallas. See Op. Att’y Gen. H-250 at 4 (1974).
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 11
47. To reiterate, the Confederate Monument in Pioneer Cemetery is the
sole property of the State of Texas and not owned by the City of Dallas. TEX.
NAT. RES. CODE ANN. § 191.093; Op. Att’y Gen. H-250 at 2 (1974).
48. In other words, when the defendants took action to demolish the
defendants were acting ultra vires. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 28.03(a).
attempted criminal mischief and subject to state jail felony conviction. TEX.
Antiquities Code. Lee Park, recently renamed Oak Lawn Park, is a State
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 12
51. Lee Park is a site of historical interest, because it is marked with
Commission in 1991. See Op. Att’y Gen. H-620 at 5 (1974). Since the statue
of Robert E. Lee and Young Soldier, its plinth and seating area are a
required to first permit the City of Dallas prior to removal of the statue.
TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. § 191.093; Op. Att’y Gen. H-250 at 2 (1974). The
defendants’ failure to seek and acquire a THC permit to remove the Robert
E. Lee statue violated section 191.093 of the Antiquities Code that requires
such a permit.
52. The defendants’ criminal liability for this strict-liability offense was
established when they voted to remove the Lee statue and then had the
statue removed. Jim Schultze and Stephen Young, Council Votes to Remove
http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dallas-council-votes-to-pull-robert-e-lee-
off-his-high-horse-9847743.
favor of the City Council’s unlawful resolution. Id. The criminal liability for
the councilmen voting for the unlawful removal of the protected statue is
statutorily determined. For each offense, the penalty is a fine of between $50
and $1,000, by confinement in jail for not more than 30 days, or by both.
TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. § 191.171(a); Op. Att’y Gen. H-250 at 3 (1974).
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 13
“Each day of continued violation of any provision of this chapter constitutes
a separate offense for which the offender may be punished.” TEX. NAT. RES.
54. Since the Mayor and City Councilmen voted to remove the Lee statue
voted for an unlawful action, thus stripping them of any claim to sovereign
immunity, and leaving each of them, excepting Sandy Greyson and Rickey
Callahan, criminally liable for fines that could reach as high as $290,000 and
jail time into many years for removing a revered and honored monument to
55. The defendants 6 ordered the removal of Proctor’s Lee and Young
56. The State of Texas owns Proctor’s Robert E. Lee and Young Soldier.
TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. § 191.093; Op. Att’y Gen. H-250 at 2 (1974). The
statue was in a historic site, Robert E. Lee, or alternatively Oak Lawn, Park.
Commission Marker No. 6759. Exhibit C. See Op. Att’y Gen. H-620 at 5
(1974). Texas historic sites are the sole property of the State of Texas. TEX.
NAT. RES. CODE ANN. § 191.093; Op. Att’y Gen. H-250 at 2 (1974). This
6 Throughout this section, plaintiffs use the term “defendants,” excepting Sandy Greyson
and Rickey Callahan, even though they are listed defendants in earlier sections.
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 14
ownership interest in historic sites was established to protect historic sites
officers, such as the Mayor and City Council of Dallas. See Op. Att’y Gen. H-
250 at 4 (1974).
57. Proctor’s Lee in Lee Park is the sole property of the State of Texas.
TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. § 191.093; Op. Att’y Gen. H-250 at 2 (1974). The
statue is not the property of the City of Dallas. In other words, when the
defendants took action to remove Proctor’s Lee, they took action against the
capacities, because the defendants were acting ultra vires. TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. § 28.03(a).
damaged Proctor’s Lee in removing the statue from its plinth that was
removed the statue, because the defendants held public meetings and press
Proctor’s Lee was the tangible personal property of the State of Texas. TEX.
NAT. RES. CODE ANN. § 191.093; Op. Att’y Gen. H-250 at 2 (1974). The
defendants did not have effective consent to remove the property of the State
of Texas, because the defendants did not seek, nor obtain effective consent
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 15
that statutorily must be obtained solely through the Texas Historical
amount of pecuniary loss to the property. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 28.03(b).
The value of Proctor’s Lee is well over $200,000. Where the value of the
degree. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 28.03(b)(7). The penalty for a first-degree
or for any term of not more than 99 years or less than 5 years.” TEX. PENAL
felony “may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.” TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. § 12.32(b).
60. The Court should refer this matter to the Dallas County District
violation of the Texas Antiquities Code and criminal mischief in so far as the
Mayor and City Council of Dallas, excepting Sandy Greyson and Rickey
Court should order this referral, because the Texas Antiquities Code directs
“All state and local law enforcement agencies and officers . . . to assist in
enforcing the provisions and carrying out the intent of this chapter.” TEX.
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 16
E. Application for Temporary Restraining Order
citizen of the State of Texas may bring an action in any court of competent
jurisdiction for restraining orders and injunctive relief to restrain and enjoin
62. The plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin the defendants from
defendants from selling Proctor’s Robert E. Lee and Young Soldier, to enjoin
removal of the plinth and seating area to Proctor’s Lee, and to order the
defendants restore and return Proctor’s Lee to its original plinth in Robert
E. Lee Park.
63. It is probable that the plaintiffs will prevail over the defendants after
a trial on the merits, because the facts and law conclusively support that the
in Pioneer Park, to remove the plinth and seating area to Proctor’s Lee, and
that both Monuments are protected under the Texas Antiquities Code.
Further, the facts and law conclusively support that the defendants
unlawfully removed Proctor’s Robert E. Lee and Young Soldier and should
be ordered to restore and replace the statue on its plinth in Lee Park.
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 17
64. If the plaintiffs’ application is not granted, harm is imminent, because
plaintiffs have serious concerns that the defendants will demolish the
approve their criminal plan, as they began removing Proctor’s Lee within
Monument, the removal of the plinth to Proctor’s Lee, and the sale of
66. The plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, because damages are
incalculable and the remedies granted under the Texas Antiquities Code
provide for equitable remedies only. TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. § 191.173(a).
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 18
F. Request for Temporary Injunction
68. The plaintiffs ask the Court to set their application for temporary
69. The plaintiffs have joined all indispensable parties under Texas Rule
70. The plaintiffs ask the Court to set their request for a permanent
injunction for a hearing and, after the hearing, issue a permanent injunction
71. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, the plaintiffs request that
the defendants disclose within fifty days of service of this request, the
IX. PRAYER
72. For these reasons, the plaintiffs ask that the defendants be cited to
appear and answer, and, on final trial or at preliminary hearing, that the
Cemetery, the plinth and seating area to Proctor’s Lee and Young Soldier in
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 19
b. Temporary injunction, enjoining the defendants from
to Proctor’s Lee and Young Soldier in Lee/Oak Lawn Park, and from selling
Proctor’s Lee;
Cemetery, the plinth and seating area to Proctor’s Lee and Young Soldier in
return Proctor’s Lee and Young Soldier to its plinth in Robert E. Lee Park;
the Texas Attorney General for criminal prosecution, pursuant to TEX. NAT.
s/ Warren V. Norred
Texas Bar No. 24045094
Norred Law, PLLC
515 East Border Street
Arlington, TX 76010
Tel. (817) 704-3984
Fax (817) 524-6686
wnorred@norredlaw.com
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 20
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 21
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 22
Plaintiffs’ Original Petition, App. for TRO, Request for Disclosure Page 23
• • 021629
5-21-02
ORDINANCE'NO. _2_4_9_3_8
Ari. ordinance am~~ding the zoning ordinanc~s of the City of. Dallas/ as amended/ by
I
establishing Historic Overlay District No. 114 (Pioneer Cemetery) comprised of the
BEING a tract of land out of the J.H. Grigsby Survey/ Abstract No. 495 and the J.N.
Bryan Survey/ Abstract No.149/ being·all of City of Dallas Blocks 66 and 67 in the City
of Dallas/ Dallas County/ Texas/ and containing four acres of land; more or less;
providing procedures/ regulations/ and preservation criteria for structures and property
in the district; providing a penalty not to exceed $2/000; providing a saving clause;
WHEREAS/ the city plan commission and the city councit in accordance with the
Charter of the City of Dallas/ the state law/ and the applicable ordinances of the city/
have given the required notices and have held the required public hearings regarding
WHEREAS/ the city council finds that the property described herein is an area of
historical/ cultural/ and architectural importance and significance to the citizens of the
city; and
WHEREAS/ the city council finds that it is in the public interest to establish this
Exhibit A, p. 1 of 15
• 249 38
• 021629
SECTION 1. That the zoning ordinances of the City of Dallas are amended by
establishing Historic Overlay District No. 114 comprised of the following de~cribed
BEING a tract of land out of the J.H. Grigsby Sur~ey, Abstract No. 495 and the J.N.
Bryan Survey, Abstract No. 149, being all of City of Dallas Blocks 66 and 67 in the City
of Dallas, Dallas County, Texas, and containing four acres of land, more or less.
SECTION 2. That the establishment of this historic overlay district shall not affect
the existing underlying zoning classification of the Property, which shall remain subject
to the regulations of the underlying zoning district. If there is a conflict, the regulations
in this ordinance control over the regulations of the underlying zoning district.
SECTION 3. That a person shall not alter the Property, or any portion of the
Development Code, as amended, and this ordinance. All alterations to the Property
must comply with the preservation criteria attached to and made a part of this
ordinance as Exhibit A.
SECTION 4. That the building official shall not issue a building permit or a
certificate of occupancy for a use on the Property until there has been full compliance
with this ordinance, the Dallas Development Code, the construction codes, and all other
Exhibit A, p. 2 of 15
• 249 38 021629
District Map No. J-7 in the offices of the city secretary, the building official, and the
department of planning and development to reflect the changes in zoning rri.ade[by this
ordinance.
fine, the City may, in acco~dance with state law, provide civil penalties for a violation of
this ordinance, and institute any appropriate action or proceedings to prevent, restrain,
Property.
SECTION 7. That the zoning ordinances of the City of Dallas, as amended, shall
remain in full force and effect, save and except as amended by this ordinance.
SECTION 8. That the terms and provisions of this ordinance are severable and
are governed by Section 1-4 of CHAPTER 1 of the Dallas City Code, as amended.
SECTION 9. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its
passage and publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Passed_ _ _ _M_A_Y_2_2_20_02_ _ __
Exhibit A, p. 3 of 15
• 249 38
EXHIBIT A · · . 1
• 021629
PRESERVATION CRITERIA
Pioneer Cemetery Historic District
Marilla Street at Young Street
1. GENERAL
1.2 Any alterations to property within this district must comply with the
regulations contained in CHAPTER 51A of the Dallas City Code, as
amended. In' the event of a conflict, these preservation criteria control.
a. A person, may not alter a site within this district, or alter, place,
constr.u.ct, maintain, or expand any structure on the site without
first obtaining a certificate of. appropriateness in accordance with
Section SlA-4.501 of the Dallas Development Code, as amended,
and these preservation criteria.
1.4 A person may not demolish or remove any structure in this district
without first obtaining a certificate for demolition or removal in
accordance with Section SlA-4.501 of the Dallas Development Code, as
amended.
1.5 Preservation and restoration materials and methods used must comply
with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and
Preservation Briefs published by the United States Department of the
Interior, copies of which are available at the Dallas Public Library.
Exhibit A, p. 4 of 15
• 249 38
• 02162f
1.8 The period of historic significance for this district is the period from 1849
to 1921.
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1 Unless defined below, the definitions contained in CHAPTER 51A of the
Dallas City Code, as amended, apply.
2.6 DISTRICT means Historic Overlay District No. 114, the Pioneer Cemetery
Historic Overlay District. This district contains the property described in
Section 1 of this ordinance and as shown on Exhibit B.
2.7 ERECT means to attach, build, draw, fasten, fix, hang, maintain, paint,
place, suspend, or otherwise construct.
Exhibit A, p. 5 of 15
• .249 38 • 021629
2.10 GRAVE means the space of ground used for the permanent interment of
human remains.
2.11 GRAVE 'MARKER means a marker that identifies the locations of\one of
more graves. Grave markers may be stone or metal and typiqlly are
inscribed with the name and dates of birth and death; these can be located
at the head or foot of a single grave or located to mark a group of graves.
i• ..
2.15 REMAINS means the body, or parts of the body, of a deceased person.
2.16 TOMB means a house, chamber, vault, or other structure erected partially
or entirely above grade, which is used or intended to be used for the
permanent interment of remains.
3.3 Walkways
Exhibit A, p. 6 of 15
b.
• 249 38 • 02162.9
Crushed gravel, stone, or stone chips may be used for walkways
only if contained within concrete or metal edging.
3.4 Parking areas, driveways, and paved areas are not allowed ..
3.5 Landscaping
3.6 The grade of any area within Pioneer Cemetery may not be changed.
3.7 Fences
Exhibit A, p. 7 of 15
• · 249 38
- 021·629
c. If the design of the original grave marker is riot known, new flat
grave markers may be used as shown in Exhibit C.
4.4 No new monuments or tombs may be erected. This does not prohibit
informational signs or plaques associated with the history· of Pioneer
Cemetery or the individuals buried there.
Exhibit A, p. 8 of 15
• 249 38 -
·0216~9
Grave markers which have broken into two or more pieces must
be repaired using standards accepted by the Association for Grave
Stone Studies, 278 Main Street, Suite 207, Greenfield, Massachusetts
01301 (413-772-0836 or http:/ /www.gravestonestudies.org) or as
detailed in A Graveyard Preservation Primer by Lynette Stranstad.
Exhibit A, p. 9 of 15
5. BURIALS AND REINTERMENTS
• 249 38
e 021·629
5.1 Pioneer Cemetery may contain unmarked graves. In the event that
remains or artifacts suggestive of the presence of a graye are
encountered, the site must be secured, the city's historic preservation
officer notified, and all activities at the site cease. A certificate of
appropriateness to restore the site or relocate the grave must be obtained
before activities may resume. ·
I•
5.5 After a reinterm~nt is completed, the original grade of that area must be
restored.
6. PROTECTED FEATURES
6.1 The following elements are considered important features and are
protected:
a. Grave markers
b. Monuments
c. Tombs
d. Historic fences
e. Historic walkways
7. NEW CONSTRUCTION
Exhibit A, p. 10 of 15
8. SIGNS
• 249 38
e 02162!
9.. RESOURCES
t '
9.1 The following resources should be consulted when evaluating 'the
appropriateness of maintenance, rep.airs, and alterations:
I
Exhibit A, p. 11 of 15
• 249 38 -
j. Guide to Maintenance of f)utdoor Sculpture, Virginia N. Naude and
Glenn Wharton/ American Institute of Conservation of Historic and
Artistic Works (AIC)/ Washington DC/1993.
k. The Association for Grave Stone Studies/ 278 Main Street/ Suite 207
Greenfield/ MA 01303/ http:/ /www.gravestonestudies.org.
m. Preservation Plan for Plano Historic Cemeteries, Angela Tine and John
R. Dennis/ (Geo-Marine/ Inc.)/ report for City of Plano/ Texas/
September 2000.
Exhibit A, p. 12 of 15
,..,.
Plaza
100
I
0
SCAU
50 100 ~
0 20 40m
I I I
SCAU
Exhibit A, p. 13 of 15
• 249 38 • I 02162.9
... ' .
~-·--·-- ---. .____ ·--- __ ...J
EXHIBIT C
Exhibit A, p. 14 of 15
. D 3:SI ~
-tWES. E
434
~
0 200 400 ZONING
MAP NO. J-7
~
SCALE IN FEET
~ AREA OF REQUEST
CASE NO. Z012-184/11637(JA)
03-22-02
Exhibit A, p. 15 of 15