Elm Thicket Residents Sue Dallas Board of Adjustment Over Incompatible Construction

An Elm Thicket/Northpark property owner, acting on behalf of the neighborhood’s residents, has sued the Dallas Board of Adjustment, claiming the quasi-judicial panel granted variances that allow new construction in violation of a 2022 zoning code update. 

Zak Thompson filed the lawsuit in a Dallas County District Court on Dec. 20. The filing was brought to our attention by civil appellate attorney Mike Northrup of Cowles Thompson. CandysDirt.com has obtained one legal document, Zak Thompson versus Board of Adjustment for the City of Dallas, Topletz Properties Partnership LLC, but we’ve been told there are more to come. 

Failure to Follow Its Own Zoning

Thompson commented briefly but referred questions to Jonathan Maples, president of the Elm Thicket/Northpark Neighborhood Association. Neighbors say Thompson, who is the former longtime director of the Dallas County Health Department, no longer resides in Elm Thicket but maintains ownership of his childhood home there.

“Clearly, the decisions by the Board of Adjustment contribute to the gentrification of the Black and Hispanic residents of Elm Thicket/Northpark,” Thompson wrote in a text message to CandysDirt.com in late December. “The Elm Thicket/Northpark legacy residents/property owners have filed an appeal of the Dallas Board of Adjustment’s decisions regarding incompatible development in the […] neighborhood. Builders in the […] neighborhood must follow the zoning regulations of Planned Development 67, which were unanimously approved by the Dallas City Council in October 2022.” 

The newly-passed, resident-led Proposition S allows Thompson to sue the City of Dallas, its employees, or appointees for alleged violations of the city charter, ordinances, or state law. The controversial November ballot proposition waived governmental immunity from such lawsuits.

Dallas City Attorney Tammy Palomino and Interim Assistant City Manager Robin Bentley did not respond to requests for comment last week. A city spokesman told CandysDirt.com that officials cannot comment on pending litigation.

Mixed Support

The Association president Maples said the small group of “legacy residents” are supported by homeowners throughout Dallas because fear exists that if builders can violate zoning regulations in Elm Thicket, they’ll be able to do it anywhere.

“People are coming to our defense and providing us with information and resources to do what we need to do to either win or create the blueprint to help others win going forward,” Maples said. 

However, while the lawsuit hasn’t been widely publicized, a few with knowledge of it have weighed in on social media. They believe the legal filing lacks credibility, doesn’t appear to have been written by an attorney, and may get thrown out.

Maples said the legacy residents are getting legal counsel from an attorney but declined to name the lawyer. 

Erroneous Permits and Stop Work Orders

We’ve covered this matter extensively but in a nutshell — if that’s possible — here’s what led up to the legal documents filed last month. 

Following a years-long resident campaign to protect their neighborhood from gentrification, the Dallas City Council in 2022 set property standards for roof pitch, lot coverage, and height within the geographic area known as Planned Development 67. It also stipulated that duplexes could only be built on two specific streets in the Love Field neighborhood.

However after the 2022 zoning change, the City of Dallas failed to update its online system with the new zoning code and erroneously issued permits to several builders who began work on homes that didn’t meet the new requirements. Stop work orders were issued last summer by inspectors with the Dallas Planning and Development Services Department, mandating that the builders come into compliance — possibly tear down and start over — or request a variance from the Dallas Board of Adjustment.

Variances That Vary

Since the Board of Adjustment began hearing the Elm Thicket variance requests in September 2024, some have been approved and some have been denied without prejudice, meaning the applicant can return with a new plan. 

At a December meeting, the Board heard three new Elm Thicket cases from property owner Dennis Topletz on duplexes at 4516, 4500, and 4604 Hopkins Ave. These are the cases mentioned in Zak Thompson’s lawsuit against the City.

Multiple Variances Requested for 3 Duplexes

Topletz’s zoning consultant Rob Baldwin said they were different from Danny Le’s project at 6529 Victoria Ave., which is still pending a decision on Jan. 21, and that of Akber Meghani, who was allowed to complete his Elm Thicket duplex at 6801 Tyree St. Remember PD-67 only allows duplexes on Mabel Avenue and Roper Street.

“We’re not appealing the building official’s decision,” Baldwin said. “We’re not saying the building official erred in the review of the code. We’re just wishing they would have done it before our houses were issued permits and under construction.” 

Elm Thicket neighbors said at the December Board of Adjustment meeting that Topletz’s wife Iris was well aware of the 2022 zoning changes and even spoke against it during a public comment portion of the City Council meeting at which it was adopted. 

The Board couldn’t agree on the Topletz cases, where variances related to height, lot coverage, and roof style were requested for each property. Some requests were approved; some were denied without prejudice.

Watch the Dec. 9 Board of Adjustment meeting here. 

‘Nobody’s Going to Rescue Elm Thicket’

Maples, a longtime Elm Thicket/Northpark advocate and property owner, told CandysDirt.com that the group of legacy residents plans to appeal “every single variance” granted in their neighborhood based on the outdated zoning. 

“In the grand scheme of things, we came to the realization a while ago that nobody’s going to rescue Elm Thicket, just like nobody’s going to rescue West Dallas, Oak Cliff, East Dallas, or any other community that may have to get support as it relates to precedence in a neighborhood,” Maples said.

“Nobody’s going to come to our rescue so we’re going to do everything we can to make the blueprint for other communities to at least try to be able to protect themselves.” 

Maples Doubtful ‘They Didn’t Know’

Maples added that he’s not buying the argument that the builders didn’t know the zoning requirements changed for that particular area. 

“If it’s breaking the law, we’re going to appeal it,” he said. “The dirt of Elm Thicket is important to me. We’re going to fight for it but at the end of the day there should not be ‘laws for me but not for thee.’ If they broke the law, they broke the law. No one can tell me, as big as this downzoning case was, that they didn’t know.”

Maples said that Dennis and Iris Topletz have owned property on Hopkins Avenue since the 1950s. 

“There’s no way you can make me believe they don’t know what’s going on in city government,” he said. 

Accusations of Racism, Corruption

In a brief interview on Christmas Eve, Maples said he’s not a conspiracy theorist but encouraged our reporter to “follow the money,” and straight-up accused some Dallas officials of racism. According to the Dallas Board of Adjustment website, the three panels are composed primarily of white men. 

“I think there is racism going on, I think somebody’s pockets are getting greased, all of the above,” Maples said. 

Board of Adjustment Chairman Dave Neumann has previously told CandysDirt.com that he cannot comment on any pending cases before the Board of Adjustment. When asked if he could speak in general terms about the role of the quasi-judicial board, Neumann referred us to the Board of Adjustment website. 

’Self-Created Hardship’

Northrup, the lawyer who brought the case to our attention in late December, said he believes the Board of Adjustment got the Elm Thicket cases “flatly wrong.” 

“State law says that if some staff worker messes up and accidentally gives you a permit, that mistake does not override the zoning that the city council put in place,” Northrup said in an email to CandysDirt.com. “In other words, the council makes the laws and a staff member does not change the law by making a mistake.

“And that principle has even greater force in these cases where — as I understand it  — the builder/property owner attended the hearings where the council passed the zoning in question, so when the staff member made the mistake and issued a permit, the builder would have known it was a mistake and yet the builder went forward with the project. That’s considered a self-created hardship and the Board of Adjustment cannot grant a variance for a self-created hardship.”

Maples said he got notification from the City Attorney’s Office that they received the legal filing and he plans to address the matter at Panel A’s next meeting on Jan. 21. 

“We’re going to do what Elm Thicket always does,” he said. “We’re going to do this as legally as possible. We’re going to stay above board. The endgame is, we believe that those that are doing wrong, it will come out in the wash.”