West Dallas Resident Files Lawsuit To Try To Run Shingle Factory Out of Town

Jani Cisneros of West Dallas wants the local gravel plant gone. He said he wants justice and will go to court to get it. The lawsuit was filed in Dallas County District Court before Christmas, but the city responded on Jan. 4. Blogtrepreneur, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

West Dallas resident Janie Cisneros walks about 1,000 feet every day from the GAF asphalt shingle plant on Singleton Boulevard, one of the city’s biggest polluters. The plant has been in operation for more than 80 years, and Cisneros and others are trying to move it out of town through a process called decommissioning.

The write-off allows the city to force previously compliant businesses to close without compensation to the owners if it determines the owners have recouped their investment in the property. Now Cisneros is suing the city to begin cancellation proceedings to get GAF out of the city. “We’re looking for justice,” said Cisneros, who leads the local Singleton United/Unidos group in West Dallas. GAF plans to leave West Dallas by 2029, but some residents, including Cisneros, want the plant up and running sooner. The lawsuit names the Dallas Board of Corrections and Kameka Miller-Hoskins, the board’s chief planner and interim administrator. When asked for comment, the city said it does not comment on ongoing litigation.

The Dallas City Code has a section on removal of nonconforming uses. If a building does not comply with the current zoning plan, it will be used for non-standard purposes. This subsection describes the process of calculating depreciation for an asset. This process allows non-conforming uses to be assigned a compliance date. This is the date by which the misuse of the property must cease.

“We’re just looking for justice.” – Janie Cisneros, Singleton United/Unidos

According to the ordinance, anyone who lives or owns property in the city can petition the Dallas Board of Adjustment to consider setting a compliance date for nonconforming uses. After receiving this request, the appointment committee said: “There is a public hearing to determine whether the continuous impact of using non -compliance will have a negative impact on nearby real estate.”

Despite the words of the city code, the city announced on the web site that “due to the recent modification of the state law” does not accept the appointment committee’s request to determine the date of compliance with the improper use “.

According to the judicial case, the city will probably refer to 929 people in the Senate who have to provide compensation to the real estate owner if the owner is required to use irregular regulations. The city strives to change the depreciation procedure according to SB 929. As part of the changes, the city is trying to strip residents of their right to request expungement.

But city code has not yet been amended, and SB 929 does not change the Board of Adjustment’s obligation to hold a public hearing after a resident or landowner requests an appropriate date for a nonconforming use, the lawsuit says. Cisneros has tried twice to ask the regulatory commission to consider setting a compliance date for the non-compliant use of GAF at the West Dallas gravel plant. But on the advice of the city attorney, the commission twice denied Cisneros’ request. According to the lawsuit, the board told Cisneros, “Our counsel has not given us approval and we do not have the authority to grant this motion.” The request was sent to the city prosecutor’s office, but it was rejected. Cisneros argued in his lawsuit that the city had no right to deny his request. Through the lawsuit, Cisneros is seeking Mandamus and/or a declaratory judgment to force the city to accept the request and hold a public hearing regarding the liquidation of the GAF chip plant in West Dallas. “This is a service. This is a right. It’s in the books,” Cisneros said of the cancellation process. “How do I stop the process?” That doesn’t make sense. It makes sense to stop doing this because you don’t want to write GAF anymore. “It’s too unfair.”