Loading...
Construction Board of Adjustment Minutes - 04/22/2026 CONSTRUCTION BOARD of AJUSTMENT&APPEALS April 22, 2026 PRESENT: Leo Lane ♦Member Anthony Inman •Member Michael Grassi ♦Member Pete Johnson •Member Rick Hernandez •Member Allen Moore •Member Ripley Tate •Member Luke Oechsner •Member Gary Oatman •Member Doug Marchand(Alt. 1) •Member Fabian Medellin, Development Services Director •City Staff Monica Aguon, Deputy City Attorney •City Staff Rita Miller, Assistant Director of Development Services ♦City Staff Craig Berend, Fire Marshal •City Staff Brad Scates, Electrical Inspector 8,Assistant Building Official ♦City Staff Brandon Petersen, Plans Examiner •City Staff Christal Cates, Neighborhood Revitalization Coordinator Planner II ♦City Staff Robin Marshall,Admin Assistant •City Staff OTHER ATTENDEES Phillip Townsend, R.A., Appellant Amanda Chandler, Property Owner Larry Nelson, General Contractor Tanner Wachsman (CBOAA—Alt. 2) •Member I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Leo Lane at 2:00 p.m. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Lane gave the board members time to review the November 10,2022,minutes, and then called for a motion to adopt those said minutes. Board member Michael Grassi made a motion to approve the minutes as presented and Vice-Chairman Anthony Inman seconded the motion. Chairman Lane opened comments to the public,and there were no additional comments. Chairman Lane took the motion to vote, and the motion passed unanimously with a vote of 10- 0 in favor. Work Session Notes 2 April 22, 2026 III. REGULAR AGENDA Chairman Lane noted that each side will have thirty minutes to make a presentation to the board. The board may consider evidence including; statements, documents, and other relevant material and information. City staff will present first, and then Mr.Townsend will make a presentation. After presentations,the board may sustain the approval, and reverse or modify the city's determination of the issue alternatively. Alternatively, the board may deny or reject the appeal and allow the city determination to stand. The presentation was made by Director Fabian Medellin: Director Medellin took a moment to introduce himself to the board members, and giving a little background about himself told the board he started with the city in the Planning Department eight years ago. He slowly progressed in positions in the Planning Department and was recently promoted to the position of Director of Development Services. He stated, today we have an appeal to a determination by the Fire Marshal and our Buildings Inspection personnel with regard to chapter 14 of the 2015 International existing building code. This is in relation to a project at 5200 Henry S. Grace Freeway for an addition to an existing structure, an A-3 assembly use, known as the Pickleball Hanger. For those not familiar with pickleball, just think of tennis on a smaller scale, different rackets, slightly different rules and a different ball as well_ He continued, the project is for an addition to the existing 11,606 (11,616) square foot building to add 11,937 square feet and essentially doubling the size of the building. Director Medellin then showed a map of the site itself, and where it is located within the city. It has frontages along Jacksboro Highway and US 281,just north of Rathgeber Road and just south of Kickapoo Airport as well.The board was then shown an aerial image of the property as it exists today, and Director Medellin pointed out that the building that is there was formerly a church, but Ms. Amanda Chandler went through the process of the change of use into the Pickleball hanger, and it has operated for about three years now. He then pointed out the building, the drives that come off of Jacksboro Highway and 281 frontage road that led up to the building. Director Medellin explained that the addition, that was permitted, is just south of the existing building. He reiterated that there is a current permit for the project. The project was submitted to us in October of 2009. Staff reviewed it, approved it, however that was by a different professional than our appellant today. To get a scale of the building, additional pictures of the site were shown to the board, with one of the photos looking East at the building from Ditto Lane. As he had mentioned, originally this project came to the city via a different architect, and those plans were reviewed and approved. And with those plans, part of the requirement was a suppression system. Director Medellin then showed the site plan by the former architect. Currently in the existing building,there are four pickleball courts, so the owner would be doubling that by having four additional courts in the planned 11,937 square foot addition. Director Medellin pointed out the orientation of the site plan where the new building would be, as well as additional parking and circulation. Director Medellin then gave an overview of the timeline,and why this meeting is being held; Work Session Notes 3 April 22, 2026 In 2015, the International Existing Building Code was adopted. That was in December of 2015, and with that, there were some local administrative codes that govern the applicability of that International Existing Building Code. Then fast forward to October of this past year, plans were submitted and approved for that addition with a suppression system. However, in early January of this year, the property owner/business owner (Ms. Chandler) advised us that she had switched to a new design professional, Mr. Philip Townsend, our appellant, today. Shortly thereafter, a new set of code analysis plans were submitted to the city. And with those plans, the application of Chapter 14 of the International Existing Building Code. That chapter is more commonly known as the compliance method chapter. Director Medellin explained that it is a section of the Existing Building Code that allows for essentially a scoring of the existing elements of a building and providing a minimum level of safety with regard to egress and fire safety. It accounts for various different physical attributes of the building: height, building material, number of egress points,and any kind of existing fire alarms. He continued, stating that staff received those plans and began to review it. But then, it was determined by staff that that particular chapter is not applicable to that building. Staff then responded to Mr. Townsend.A few months later, after a couple of conversations and a couple of meetings with the owner to provide alternate options within the building code to allow for the addition, and a revision to the permitted plans. After that, staff received an appeal request, and then 20-plus days later here we are, to present the information to the board to make a determination on the appeal request. Director Medellin pointed out the section and the applicability portion of that 2015 International Building Code. Adding that this is, as it is, straight from ICC. He said, as you can see,there is a portion to be amended, that's required to be amended and showed a slide that read: 1401.2 Applicability *Structures existing prior to [DATE TO BE INSERTED BY THE JURISDICTION. Note: it is recommended that this date coincide with the effective date of building codes within the jurisdiction], in which there is work involving additions, alterations or changes of occupancy shall be made to conform to the requirements of this chapter or the provisions of Chapters 5 through 13. The provisions of Sections 1401.2.1 through 1401.2.2 shall apply to existing occupancies that will continue to_be or are Pro psed t_o •- PADS A. B, E, F, 1-2, M, R and S. These provisions shall not apply to building with occupancies in Group H or 1-1, 1-3 or 1-4. * He added, when the city adopted the International Building Code, we had to make a local amendment to the 2015 IEBC just to insert that date of applicability. So,the city,with our adoption, selected 1945. Looking through historical ordinances between 1920 and 1945, that's really when the city began to adopt administrative processes and a standard for construction alteration of buildings, and various points in time. Staff believe that is why 1945 was selected. With that, staff believe that our determination based on the year adopted going back to that 2015 code is 1945. Ms. Chandler's building was built in late 2000's, so then would just be subject to Chapters 3 through 13 of the International Existing Building Code that would require that suppression system. A Commissioner stated he was having difficulty hearing the Director, so Director Medellin recapped what he had just explained. Board member, Rick Hernandez asked, is it only for the addition or is there work inside the existing building that's also being done? Director Medellin answered that it is just the addition, the completely new addition. He continued by saying, the owner wanted one complete large open space just for some safety reasons. Pickleball, though it is on a smaller court, can be Work Session Notes 4 April 22, 2026 dangerous. There is potential for injury. She wanted a big open space where you can see all 8 courts at any given point in time. And be able to respond if there is an incident. So, staff, during our review of the alternate code analysis, did propose to the owner a couple alternate options instead of suppression. Staff also offered the use of a firewall to separate those buildings. There are methods where you can still have openings or visibility. We also offered basically just detaching that and creating space between those where a firewall or suppression system wouldn't be required in either structure. He stated that staff received the appeal for the application right after that meeting. Board member Luke Oechsner asked,when the 2015 code was adopted, why wasn't it that date? If that's the date that was adopted, the code and the rule, why wouldn't it be that date? Director Medellin replied,typically these are used for Chapter 14 for older buildings. Buildings that may be more difficult to modify or update. That is why the compliance method is used to look at what's the minimum level of safety. That's when our adopters looked at when did we really start to regulate what is safe, what's the standard. He added, there's a bit of a range there on when that happened. Board member Michael Grassi asked, have you looked anywhere else in the state to compare what other municipalities do? The Director said, when it comes to this, no. Mr. Hernandez said, he saw in the report from the city that a fire protection engineer was recommended. He wondered if that ever happened. Was a fire protection engineer ever consulted on this? Director Medellin answered, no, staff officially didn't review the actual analysis because we determined that it wasn't even applicable. So therefore, any comments or actual review of the performance compliance method itself wasn't necessary because we couldn't pass step one. Mr. Grassi followed up by asking, do we add that requirement to the (unintelligible). The Director replied that there is a requirement, a performance compliance method, if used on an applicable building, it is to be submitted by a fire engineer. Mr.Grassi asked for him to expound more on why that would be required. Director Medellin stated that in his opinion, after looking through minutes and meetings,there is not a lot of information conveyed as to why. But just the level of technicality that would be needed to ascertain that bar minimum safety level. He then deferred the question to the City Fire Marshal Craig Berend. Marshal Berend stated that it is best that we always have a third party look at it as well, which we would take that into account. Mr. Grassi added, it looks like we've made the code more restrictive than the national model with our selection of the date, plus the addition of adding a fire protection engineer. He said he is curious as to why. The Director said, reading the commentary it says that it is recommended that the year or date that those building codes are adopted by the city, should be used. That's why Director Medellin referred to that period when those standards started to come into play. Mr. Hernandez said he has reviewed Mr. Townsend's calculations of the fire areas and said he thinks that is going to be critical in determining what the limitations are. He stated, while not being familiar with the plans, did I understand that there is no fire separation between the two buildings? And asked, is there any kind of fire separation or are they directly connected without any fire separation?The Director clarified that there is no separation between the two buildings. Work Session Notes 5 April 22, 2026 Board member, Gary Oatman, stated that he also reviewed the plans that Mr. Townsend put together and also those that Mr. Koen had. He added that one thing of importance to be noted is that the south wall of the existing building is slated to be demoed. And in addition to that, there is another 50 or so feet of that section of the building that might have been an entry area that is also to be taken away, so they can put the new structure up against the other. So, the two structures will not be separated by any wall at this point, that's how the plans are drawn up at this time. Director Medellin answered that all is correct, and the entryway that Mr. Oatman is referring to has been demolished. There is a temporary wall to protect from the elements. After no additional questions, Mr. Phillip Townsend came forward to present his case. He said he was going to give some history and said that this appeal has no merit whatsoever if you don't honor the rule of law,adding that this municipality is operated by the charter in the State of Texas. It does not exist without that charter. He added, it states (in the charter approved by the State when it was founded) that it shall have the express powers granted to it by the Constitution. Chapter 11, Article 5 of the Constitution stipulates that a municipality cannot modify its charter or create an ordinance that's in conflict with the general laws of this state. He said, now we fast forward into the applicable law. In 2009 in local government code 214.217, it stipulates that municipalities over 100,000 are permitted to adopt a building code based upon the format of the International Building Code and the National Fire Protection. There are only two codes out there like that. National Fire Protection had a building code that could be adopted, but only two municipalities in the entire country had that. That was Pasadena, Texas, and Phoenix, Arizona. He continued by stating,they have since gone to the IBC years ago. So now it's kind of monopoly. We could not collectively here, gentlemen, go together and say, hey, let's build a building code for Texas because it has to meet that format on a national level, not just local level. Multiple brains, multiple eyes, multiple thoughts.That's intended for adoption by local governments as law. That's the format that has to be met. IBC is that format. 1f Wichita Falls did not adopt the 2015 Building Code and the 2009 revision of the, of the Local Government Code, it would be the 2012. That would be the standard. Anybody below 100,000 cannot adopt anything different because the State's already adopted it.And on record,we saw this during the electrical fiasco a couple of years ago that did not follow suit in properly adopting, and they were enforcing electrical code since 2005 without properly adopting it until they found out they got caught. He said, we got to adopt it. And they went and adopted. I should have done my job better and verified it, but I thought they knew what they were doing. So, they had to come back in and TDLR came in and said, we have to adopt the latest edition of the code. Mr. Townsend said he called the president of the board there and said "I got a problem here." Local Government Code says that the—in 214.214—that the National Electrical Code is the code as it existed May 1st, 2001. Well, you go and look at the edition, it's the '99 Electrical Code.That's still on the books today. I guarantee you;we'll look at it, you'll see. It's still there. For municipalities under 100,000 now since'09, but before that it was the 99. He said they had this big powwow, and they brought in the guy on the screen from TDLR and he said, "Oh, we got to do the latest edition." Mr. Townsend called the president of the board, and stated that he was an electrical contractor at a Portland, Texas suburb of Corpus Christi. Mr. Townsend said, we got a problem. We got the electrical code here, we got the TDLR, we got the local government code here, two different dates. What's going on? We got a conflict. His quote was,we cannot enforce a city to adopt what we have to adopt. Mr. Townsend said he asked why, what's the problem? Because we have to adopt the latest code to test candidates.Well,of course that's the reason. That makes sense. Test candidates, you (unintelligible) to test them on an older Work Session Notes 6 April 22, 2026 code, but the legislature says that the older code is what is applicable. Now we get to 214.2-17 in 2009. It says, hey, Wichita Falls, you're over 100,000, you're permitted to adopt something different. So, we go in there and finally adopt the 2017. When we roll back to the other side of the fence and get the building code, Building Code is permitted to be adopted. Mr. Townsend said he had to go back a little bit further and added that he thinks one member of the board would remember this event; probably early to mid-2005, 2004, somewhere in that neighborhood (He wasn't exactly sure which year).When I came across the 2000 IBC, it was just pulled together,all the codes pulled together, they edited something, 1,600-edits editing to create the IBC.When IBC was created and formulated, this was part of it. Mr. Townsend thought that's a pretty good tool. He said he started looking at it. Why is this here? Chapter 34 of the Building Code. He said he looked at it and saw what the preamble was to it, so he used it. He said he had a client that wanted to put apartments in the old 8th Street Coffee House, which I did. He stated that's where his office was. This was before it happened like it was.And he analyzed the building according to that standard. Mr. Townsend said it did not require sprinkler system. The city said a sprinkler system was needed. (Bobby Teague was the administer at that time.)So, Mr.Townsend appealed the decision. He contacted the National Institute of Building Sciences, because they're the ones that created this format. Mr. Townsend said, "tell me the background, what happened? I actually talked to the guy who actually was a greenhorn there when it started back in like the early '80s. He said it was a big project. HUD— now, National Building Sciences is not a government entity. They're a private business, but they create standards for buildings to be considered. It's a business for them. He said this was a big order by HUD so that housing projects can be rehabbed to meet life safety code without a lot of expense. We're talking about Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore.You get the picture. Lots of housing authorities need to be renovated. This provided an alternative means to address those issues. Okay, great. I got the background on it. I understood it now better in my dialog with him. Big project, he said. It was intense to come up with the matrix. It doesn't look like it, but that's what he told me for sure. So go through the appeal process. Well, similar situation here, different location. I presented—well, my mistake was I went first and not second. So, when Mr. Teague came up, he produced a letter from a staff architect at IBC. Now keep in mind, I am a registered architect, and that has its own provisions, and I'll get to that in a minute. He presents a letter from an IBC staff architect to say, "Hey, he agrees with me." Well, the board, I overwhelmed them with 30, 25, 30 sheets of paper of facts behind this. They couldn't absorb it in the timeframe allowed, so they tabled it. So I went back to David Collins, who was a code writer out of Cincinnati, Ohio, get his opinion on it. He couldn't get to it right then, we tabled it for a week. Come up 4 or 5 days down into the week, he was coming back to it. He saw the letter. I was just trying to get his input, get an angle on it. He saw the letter, called this architect's superior 2 levels up, an engineer at IBC, and rescinded the letter. Said it was sent in error. Based on my numbers presented, I did it correctly. David Collins agreed. He's a code writer, did it at that time over 15 years as a registered architect in Texas. 3 people. It's Bobby Teague." Mr. Townsend brought and presented that evidence at the second meeting. He said, "One allegation by an architect that was on the board then,well, Mr.Townsend,are you trying to get Smith Walker out of doing something? I said,whoa,wait a minute. I'm evaluating the building, not the individual. I'm evaluating the building. They were looking like I'm trying to get him out of something. I have a responsibility,and I take that responsibility very seriously. So,present the evidence to there. Well, Bobby, what do you think?They looked at him. You know what his answer was?Three people in agreement, boss of the architect, registered architect, and a code writer." He continued to say, "Bobby T, well, that's Work Session Notes 7 April 22, 2026 just another opinion. That's another opinion. They voted in the negative. They denied it. Well, told the owner, I said, well, we got an opportunity to appeal this decision. See the picture? So, he went around the next day or two and went to Bobby Teague. Asked Bobby, he said, how can we get around this? Well,just put in an R-13. That building was 6 stories. R-13 is allowed only up to and including 4 floors. But he, code official, had no training, no background, no authority outside the city limits. Oh, let's put in something that's not permitted by code. That's totally wrong. Guy abandoned the project. That's some of the background. That's when I started really looking at the application of this provision. This date put in in 1945 and the requirement for a fire protection engineer was solely done by Mr. Teague to prevent me from using it, because I was the only one using it at the time. Now, Mr. Fabian, I'm glad he read it, and recommended date to be matched to building code. Now, truth tell is, it bothers me as to why that's even in there if its part of the code anyway, right?" Mr. Townsend added, "why is Chapter 14 there differently? Because you got Chapter 3 through 13, has other levels of compliance, but this is an alternative measure that I used that is employable. But yet in the original document of the code, there's no date established. It says, "Recomiendo." But see, this is a code that's used all across the country. In Texas, that's law because it gives permission of Wichita Falls to adopt it, and when it does, inside this jurisdiction, it becomes a matter of state law for this jurisdiction, not just local, state law. But in any code, you read, you'll find the phrase, this code does not nullify any federal, state, or local law. There is nothing the city can adopt that will conflict with state law. But in Chapter 1 of the IBC 2015 and any other chapter, any other code year you want to go to, It has other codes, and it identifies that the provisions of the International Existing Building Code shall apply. It's adopted by reference; there is no need for adoption of that because it's part of the code structure. So, 1945 date is ridiculous, it's bogus, but looking at it, I found something else. You know, you go back and look at something. If you read it, if you got— I don't know if you— I guess you had a handout. 1 don't know. If you've seen it, you obviously had to. But in the preamble, there, when it says buildings prior to 1945, recommend to be the same year as the adoption, they have to parallel because he's referencing to the code. You don't reference Chapter 14 back to something that wasn't even existing. That doesn't make sense at all. But it says buildings prior to 1945 comply with the provisions of this chapter or 3 through 13. Can we really look at that and apply it? If you accept that lunacy, that error in an ordinance passed— you know, ordinance gets passed and it doesn't mean all ordinances are full proof. But as a matter of adopting that, which that's another means of the process of adopting it, I can't even use Chapters 3 through 13 because it says buildings this and this, prior to 1945. So now where do we go? No existing building code according to that ordinance. Read it, you'll see it. It includes both, not just one. Both. So, we have no measure of how we deal with existing buildings because at some point, like in—'09, they pulled Chapter 34 out to make the International Existing Building Code a separate code." Mr. Townsend said, but now we took it and now we say we don't have a code because it's not even in the chapter. He then went to speak about going back to the sprinkler system and 903.2 of the International Building Code and Fire Code. (He said, Chapter 9, where required, has a preamble of that section to identify every occupancy. Adding, "do not confuse occupancy with building as they are two separate things.) He continued and said 903.2 says in new buildings and structures. He noted when you look back at code in 2000 & 2001 it says "in new buildings and structures." He said, "That maintained itself all the way even to today. The code writers Work Session Notes 8 April 22, 2026 leave the word new. If it were meant to include both, it would say in new and existing buildings like it does the fire extinguishers, or it would say in buildings and structures, meaning both. But gentlemen, when it says new and doesn't include existing, I don't need to look at existing. Does not apply to existing. If it's in that category. There are some categories it already does, but it's not listed there. But we sit there and look at an '05, I guess, there's a black bar editing fire alarm systems.And it goes from 2001's in buildings and structures,and it added the word new to match the fire sprinkler system. Why is that? Why do they say that? Because it costs a lot of money to put in something in an existing building. It can't see, building code's blind. It requires me, a professional,to use that as the basis of design. It's blind, it cannot see,but it says it gives direction. So, it—so when you got an existing building,when I use Chapter 14, Chapter 14 says,okay, let's analyze the things that make this safety. Well, there's some things in there that don't even apply because it's not even a 2-story building, and floor-to-floor separation and that kind of thing doesn't apply, so the points are given. But you have other areas of points that are assigned that are a little bit flexible. So, I'm looking here, we do a baseline of where we are, we total up the points, and those points, okay, come up with a total. Hmm, I'm a little short, so well, if I add a door here or a couple of doors, I get to the point. If I don't have to do this, it gives me a shopping list." Mr. Townsend said, based upon economics, the preamble says without requiring full compliance of those chapters, it is an alternative means of safety that has been proven and kept on by the code writers. He continued by saying, "So it's a valid thing and you don't need a 1945 date. And if you apply that, well, then how can we use it today? Because the building code date was 2015. That building code date, 2015, can last forever and it'll still be a good code. Still be a good code. Oh, well,we got to update because it's out of date. No, it's not.You're saying that what we design right now is out of date, it's dangerous? No, it's not. This code can remain, but so does the alternative compliance. So now we get to a point where proper adoption of this code. I already told you that the front of it said adopted by reference. I've looked at several municipalities just because I don't care what other cities do, but there's none of them have a date on their adoption. It's because it's adopted by reference, part of the code.When they did the parent code, it went with it. I don't know why that's in there for other jurisdictions in Florida, Georgia, Wyoming, or I don't know. I don't care. Texas adopted it and says, OK, we're not going to go through and edit it like Virginia took the building code and edited it. It's the Virginia Building Code. It's IBC-based, but it's not Texas. They adopted wholesale and said, you figure it out. So, they adopted and put a wrong date in there. I'm going to tell you that ordinance was wrong. Now we get to the application of fire protection engineer. That was also added." He said the reason it was added was because he was the only one using it, and the city took it away so he couldn't use it. No one hardly knew it or what to do with it, but he felt since he did, that he got penalized for it. Mr. Townsend continued and said "That's a tool to use for existing buildings.That's effective and makes the building safe. If it makes the building prior to 1945 safe, it'll make a building now safe for the same principles, same principles. Now we get to proper adoption. Everything in '09 that stipulates the adoption of codes or procedures, that includes forms, that includes anything that comes out of this Building Inspection Department, the state says must go through you guys. Y'all hadn't met in over 10 years by understanding. Not y'all personally, but as a whole, COBA (CBOAA). It comes through you. So, one day we have this electrical requirement, we need to turn on electricity and somebody's vacated the building and somebody might have taken a light fixture and left the wires exposed. Yeah, that requires an inspection. But when did it pop up? We need to have a drawing for the building. Gentlemen, I've been doing this since 1980." He stated that he has been in this business since Work Session Notes 9 April 22, 2026 1980 and has been registered for over 35 years. Now, all of a sudden, he has to do a drawing?A gentleman from San Angelo tried to lease a space and wanted to get the power on. They told him he had to get a drawing of his building. He said he took it as it is and they got the power turned on. The city told him what to do for exit lights and egress lights. He stated they are not designers, and in his perception, they can't do this. Mr. Townsend then said, "Section 214.217 says any policy, any procedure must go through you. I did one project in McKinney, Texas, a little coffee shop, no big deal. But I get 3 and 4 emails a year seeking my input on adoption change to a policy, a form, something to fill out." He said he wasn't going to answer it because he will probably never do another project in McKinney. He said, that's the way it's to be done, and added that you decide what happens based on a situation like this, not these guys. They can propose it, want to do it, but the board will have to approve it. He said the board is a quasi-government entity of the city, and that makes them responsible. Mr. Townsend spoke of the pre-development meetings that the city holds with clients. He was made to do one, and said on paper it sounds like a good idea. But when they start to tell people what to do in that pre-development meeting, his opinion is that it's practice of architecture. He stated, "They can't tell me anymore what to do. And if you're a mechanical contractor, plumbing contractor, telling you what to do your job. Your license to design your work. That's a fact. It supersedes my design because you're the gatekeeper of final installation. If I have something on my drawing that's not clear and concise and you install it the way I do and you don't agree to it, then you're violating law. You are required to install it as you see meet code because it's what you're licensed for. Now we get to the point of applicability of authority here. We got two different distinct professions, architecture and engineering. Chapter 1001, as an engineer, there's repeatedly—because of time, I won't be able to get into every quote here, but it'll state, and I'll be glad to visit with each and every one of you at length." Mr. Townsend said, "Trust me, I've done my homework. I know what it says. I don't assume anything. I sought an architectural license for a certain reason,and then when I went in and looked at what the legislative law says, I go, "Wow,that's pretty important. I am a pretty important person." The legislature intended the architect to be the chief individual on the job. Now, Architect says examples like, "There's nothing in this chapter to prevent a person licensed by the state from practicing under the state's authority." So as a subcontractor, you have freedom to design your work. Well, you're not an engineer. You don't have to be. That right there alone is enough. Verbatim quote also says that the legislature intends for this chapter to be liberally complied with. Whoa,wait a minute.Strictly complied with, I should say. Excuse me. Why did it put that language in there? I have read several other professions, the accountant and doctor and attorney, just to compare. No language like that anywhere, but right there in the engineer, well, there must have been a problem back there. So, it directs the engineer board that this chapter should be strictly complied with. We get to the 5,000 square foot rule that everybody loves." Continuing, he said, "I'm going to say this, it's not a part of the agenda, but if you read the black bar right there in front of that, it says construction or repair of and plans for certain buildings. Oh, we've got to have an engineer over, not to slight you there, Gary, but we got to have an engineer when it's over 5,000 square feet. Well, by golly, if you're going to have an engineer, then that engineer needs to pull the dadgum permit and build the building because that's exactly what it says going into it. You don't cut off one of it and keep the rest of it. That's another matter, another day, but it relates. So, Chapter 1001.063, architects, specifically under subsection B of that chapter, is exemptions. You know what exemption is? Do I need to explain Work Session Notes 10 April 22, 2026 that? No, I don't think so. You are professionals, you're educated people. Exemptions. It means that this chapter does not apply to me. This is an exemption.This chapter or a rule adopted at the date it was originated or anything in the future from that date,this chapter or a rule adopted under this chapter does not prevent or restrict a person licensed as an architect—it includes landscape and interior designers as well because it's the same board—from performing an act, service, or work as it's defined." Mr. Townsend said, "You can't regulate me. When I do architecture, I do architecture. Well, you know what you're doing is engineering. No, when architect does it, it's architect. When an engineer does it, it's engineering. H2O and water, two different things, same product. When I do it, as long as I don't propose, oh, let me engineer that, I violated law. I fully understand that. I had two encounters, two complaints. One of them from this board here, Ricky Horton filed a complaint on me, engineer board. I sent a 45-page response. I'll be glad to give any one of you that response.Three years ago,another engineer, because I did stormwater detention. Oh, you can't do that. It's engineering. No, I'm doing architecture. Same thing. Two times, three and four years ago, zero response from the engineer board. Why? Because they have no argument. I took it away from them because that's what the law says. Gentlemen, I'm applying the law. In my experience, people don't care. I do care. I got a client that I'm representing for their need. And as I do anybody, I'm doing it with a passion. I earned my right to be who I am." He stated that the legislature says so, and he is not going to give it up. He continued, "So now we get to the practice of architecture. We got—it says the practice of architecture, the definition is to prepare,plan,and control the preparation of. I control what happens to the architectural plans and specs that include all integrated building systems. Well, that's the architectural side of definition to include these things up here called—that's a system, isn't it?The air we hear, that's a system. Plumbing, that's a system. Well, that's engineering. No, it's not, gentlemen. It's an all-integrated building system for buildings, group of buildings, and environs. You know what the word environs is? Everything outside. Does that include drainage? Oh,we got to get an engineer. No, sir, we do not. I'm an architect doing my job. If I defer it,then it's me, not them. They can't tell me how to do my business. No more than they can you how to do your business. It's got to stop. Been doing this for a long time, putting up with this mess, putting up with this mess_ So, we get into one other definition, ABCDEFGH definitions back in 2003. Establishing the practice of architecture. One of them says to determine the legal and natural constraints. Now, do we have to define what the legal is? Why do we have that there? Because it deals with building code. I determine, as an architect, the building code, not these people. They're not—it's not the state of Wichita Falls, it's the state of Texas. My license is from the state. It's really a de facto state agent. They said, OK, you've earned your right. Here's your license. You go out and do what you want to do,free agent, but you got to operate within these parameters. That's kind of the same thing. Well, how in the world does a city jurisdiction tell me what to do? Does that happen with a doctor? You imagine going to a doctor?Oh,we're going to do this surgery. Before I do, I got to go to the Harnett County Health Unit and get someone to approve it. Or an attorney, you go to an attorney. Well, we're going to go to trial. This is what we're going to do. Before I do, I got to get the law librarian to approve it. That didn't happen there because they're professionals in their duty." Mr. Townsend said that he has litigation recourse.The only thing keeping him from litigation is because he helps the small businessman —he said he helps small business to do what they can do. He added that he can do it in a manner of economics and not sacrifice health, safety and welfare. When he does that, he doesn't make a lot of money, that's why he doesn't hire an attorney. Work Session Notes 11 April 22, 2026 With two minutes remaining for his presentation, Mr. Townsend said "we get to a point of legal and natural constraints, then we turn into another definition to provide expert opinion testimony as necessary." He said his license afforded him the opportunity to produce the work he did, and stated that he doesn't need to explain anything on it. The owner has identified him as their guy. He added that he doesn't care what any other architect does, because that is their opinion and we have rights to opinions. "We have rights to opinions. You have your opinion against your other trades. So,there's a history here and there's authority here that's not being recognized.This building has been analyzed and I did it properly. I did it submitting in accordance with law. Will testify to it. And in fact, this city cannot—we shouldn't even be here. I'm only here in the appeal as a forum to get this out in the open. But if they actually followed law, how can a guy—all due respect, Mr. Brandon Peterson—he's not an architect. Fabian's not an architect. But you're telling me what to do? Uh-uh. I'm responsible for the people I design a building for.That's where it needs to go. This building is safe and secure. With the analysis I did, I did it properly. It could be challenged in court all day long. I'll stand behind it. So, I'll stop right there. I can go on and on, but you have any questions?" Board member Allen Moore followed up saying Mr. Townsend, "this may or may not pertain, but Philip, you talked 30 minutes and you didn't say one thing about that building to try to make me understand why we do it like it is. All you did was try to make all of us look dumb. You didn't tell us anything about the building." He stated that the board members are not fire experts and Mr. Townsend talked about how staff didn't know what they were doing and what they couldn't do. Mr. Townsend responded that it didn't matter what he said about the building, he had to establish the authority behind the building, and the authority behind what he did and why he did it. If he couldn't make it, he couldn't make it. Chairman Leo Lane opened the floor to comments to the public, and then to staff and the board members. Fire Marshal Craig Berend came forward and stated that staff did not take this in because of the date matter, adding that is his number one point. The ordinance was passed in 2015, however, Marshal Berend did do a cursory look at the numbers and he found some discrepancies. He included the math and what his opinion was in the handout that was given to the board. He also reached out to a code company in Fort Worth, an independent group. He wanted to get an independent third party and their findings which are in the handout as well. Marshal Berend pointed out that they don't deal with this compliance method that often. But we did the math and then the third party did the math as well, and we are in agreeance on that issue. Technically we didn't even accept it, so he didn't look at it. Mr. Townsend responded to talk about the building. The building was an addition. The structure has to comply with code, but the environment is considered an extension of the existing building. There are provisions in there for that area of increase, separations, etc. All have been now analyzed and have been assessed. He added that there is not anything in there that has a fuel load to it. It is concrete and bare walls with four pickleball courts,saying that's just common sense. The sprinkler system is point-valued addressed in that evaluation. He felt there wasn't much he needed to say about the building and added that the board members saw the pictures. He felt he had to give the board the facts of why he did what he did. He said they have to recognize what the law is, adding that's why when he says he presented it as fact. Work Session Notes 12 April 22, 2026 Mr. Townsend said if other architects don't agree with him, they don't have to. You are an individual. He then asked Marshal Berend who he had dealt with in Fort Worth regarding the code, the Marshal responded that it was Metro Code. Mr.Townsend said he has dealt with them before, and they aren't architects. The owner of the property, Ms. Amanda Chandler, came forward to make a statement to the board. She stated that the building is a concrete slab with tin walls and a couple of bathrooms. There is absolutely nothing in the building. Adding that they don't serve food, there are not any ovens or stoves. They have air conditioning units that are on the outside of the building. There are plenty of doors, and by the time a fire would get up to the very high ceiling, everybody would be out. She noted that she is medically trained. That's a point as to why she is opposed to the wall. If someone needed help medically, and she was on the other side of the wall, she wouldn't be able to see or hear them. She felt that if it was unsafe, she would fix that because she does not want to be in a building that is unsafe for people. She noted what her business has done for this community, and has helped people with heart issues, in losing weight,and people have made friendships. They have brought a community together and she is expanding it because it is growing. She is not there just to go against everything. She stated that she feels it is an unnecessary need and an unnecessary expense. City Attorney Monica Aguon introduced herself to the board. She wanted to address a few comments that were made to the board today. With regard to the practice of architecture, she said she is aware of the portion of the State code that references that definition under Section 1051.001, Sub 7 and Sub D. The practice of architecture, the term includes, in A through H, programming for construction projects, including identification of economic, legal, and natural constraints, and determination of the scope and spatial relationships of functional elements. She noted a quote; but identification being different from making the decisions about what those consequences will be. Since the practice has come up, she wanted to highlight that for the board. Attorney Aguon said the other major issue is there is talk about disputes with regard to professionals. Lawyers are notorious about disagreeing, right? There are mechanisms for citizens and legal entities to challenge the lawfulness of any law. She pointed out that this is not that venue and added that those need to be properly filed and fully litigated in court. For today's purposes, the board may rely on the code as it has been adopted with City Council action. She stated that she does not know the history in terms of why the year was chosen, but for our purposes today, there is a separate way to challenge whether the law was procedurally, and properly, adopted. She added that even those substantive questions — should a person without the professional credentials that a code compliance officer, and architect, and engineer, all of those substantive questions about who is qualified to make which determinations—all of those may be challenged in court. Attorney Aguon and told the board, for today, they can rely on the laws. It has been codified. She stated that not all ordinances are foolproof, but when they are adopted and not challenged in court, you may rely on those. She then asked the board members if they had any questions about the law. Work Session Notes 13 April 22, 2026 Mr. Oechsner asked if this meant they couldn't make any determination on this? She replied, you can apply the law as it exists. In terms of whether the board would see fit to change the applicable date from 1945 to something else, making it more or less restrictive. Any of that action needs to come through council, or alternatively, it needs to be litigated in terms of whether it was procedurally inadequate by the way it was adopted back in 2015. Mr. Oechsner said that he assumes the buildings downtown were built before 1945, and that is probably the highest risk of safety issues for the public. (Ineligible comments between Mr. Oechsner and Marshal Berend) He continued, and said he assumes the downtown buildings are the highest risk that Wichita Falls has. He was saying that basically, the city can bypass some of this stuff and determine that a metal building out on a highway was unsafe. Marshal Berend stated that he gets what Mr. Oechsner is saying, but it is more than a metal building, and once you label it an A-3, there's other occupancies that could be in the A-3. The Marshal commented that he hopes the picklebali court works out, but it may become a church or a dance hall someday... Mr. Oechsner said, "but then they would have to apply for a permit to change it. Marshal Berend stated, no, being an A-3, the new owners wouldn't have to go through that. You would then have an almost a 24,000 square-foot dance hall. Mr. Oechsner replied that doesn't make sense, that 1945, when you're putting these buildings that were probably never safe... Marshal Berend stated that was the Council's decision eleven years ago. Chairman Lane said he thinks most of the downtown buildings that are being rented are getting fire sprinklers, even the smaller buildings. Marshal Berend agreed. Attorney Aguon wanted to state that, procedurally, in terms of what we are here for today—with the appellant putting forward the appeal, the motion would be whether to sustain his appeal and rule in his favor, or to reject(or deny) his appeal and let the city's determination stand. Chairman Lane reiterated that the board is not changing the law, they are only deciding whether to accept the appeal or not. Mr. Hernandez stated to Attorney Aguon, knowing that Mr. Townsend is a registered architect and has been in practice for a long time, the way (Mr. Hernandez) regards the responsibility is that in the event that a catastrophe was to happen, he (Mr. Hernandez) would take that responsibility upon myself, because he agrees with Mr. Townsend, that they are the design professionals. Mr. Hernandez said he would not put the blame on the city unless they held his hand to enforce him to design it and construct it in a certain way. He asked if that discussion has ever happened, and added that a design professional, as far as he is concerned, could not point to the city and say, they made me do it— unless they actually forced or denied a permit because of that. Attorney Aguon was trying to understand the question correctly and said we aren't here to discuss fault in the case that something happened, and added that her understanding of the point of the adopted codes are that experts of all sorts have weighed in on them from all over. In terms of liability, she doesn't have the history with the board to offer any comment on a conversation like that. Mr. Hernandez said (from Mr. Townsend's standpoint that is the way he feels)anytime he takes on a code study (and he feels Mr. Townsend did a very thoroughly) that he (Mr. Hernandez) is accepting of that responsibility. Because if there were no city that a permit would have to go through, then ultimately, we are the ones that are liable. Attorney Aguon followed up saying she understands that Mr. Hemandez is coming at the question with a similar professional perspective, but her purpose today is not really to comment on the merits of that, but only to encourage all to review the law as it stands. Mr. Hernandez re- Work Session Notes 14 April 22, 2026 stated that he thinks the design professional would be on trial if an incident were to happen, not the board or the city. She said that it's maybe not a good platform for this (because of something recent). Mr. Hernandez then asked Mr. Townsend, knowing we talked about the options that the code allows (noting that he is sensitive about the cost of the sprinkler system), but the code does allow for separation, right? Mr. Townsend agreed with that. Mr. Hernandez continued and said the project could always be approached from that perspective as an option for compliance, and that it was considered. Mr. Townsend answered that Chapter 14 was the one that was utilized. It provides extra egress,with a door on the new addition about 45 feet away from the net, so people can get out pretty quick, and he feels quicker than the other end. Mr. Hernandez did his own research on assembly occupancies where catastrophes happened, where a building with a high occupant load had an event where people got trapped in there. He noted keeping in mind that people sometimes carry personal belongings. In a seminar that he went to he learned that people are fuel for fire, their clothes, and their personal belongings. He said when you pack people into an area, that is what the risk is, adding, that without any kind of exits being restricted. Chairman Lane said that they will have a period of discussion for the board members and asked if anyone else from the public wanted to speak. Mr. Larry Nelson came forward and stated that he is the contractor on the pickleball project. He felt that if there was a fire, once the alarm went off the sprinkler system wouldn't do any good anyway because everybody would already be out because of the doors all the way around the building. He said there is nothing combustible in there. Adding that what Mr. Townsend is doing his part of the law, it's an alternate compliance for that. Mr. Nelson said the board should have gone out to the site to see it, he feels with the garage doors opened up everyone would get out. The alternate compliance said 45 feet, and said some of them are less than that. Chairman Lane closed the public hearing at 3:08pm, and opened the discussion up to the board. Doug Marchand asked board member Gary Oatman if the project could be done with breakable firewalls, that would expand so they would still have the view and/or could they increase the egress? Mr. Oatman answered and said he is a structural engineer, not an architect, so it is out of his normal dealings, but there are a lot of options that they could come up with that would include some type of firewall — whether or not it had visible openings or doorways that automatically shut. He stated that he goes into plants often that have fuses on the doorways,that in case of a fire will shut a door and close off an area. Mr. Oatman said he went to the site to view what was going on there and stated that he is familiar with the building because he had been there when it was a church about ten years ago. (The entire interior of the pre-existing church has been demolished since then.) He agreed that there is a very limited area in the building that is flammable and said that one would be hard pressed to try to light a fire in there and keep it going. He then noted that there are no restrictions on the number of people that can get into the building, and they bring their personal belongings with them. He pointed out that the only equipment there is heating and air conditioning equipment. Mr. Oatman recognized that they provide an extension of recreational opportunities in Wichita Falls, and the business draws people in from out of town. He would hate to see the board come up with restrictions to prevent them from operating, but he stated that he also knows that in the long run you set a precedent Work Session Notes 15 April 22, 2026 here when you go around our building codes. He feels bringing this before the board is the right channel, and the board has a responsibility to meet and keep up with those codes. He feels the board should take a look back at some date issues to see if they should make some changes to that. But that's not to happen today. He added that he thinks Mr. Townsend brought up some valid points and appreciates him being there and speaking his part. Chairman Lane commented that before 9/11, there was never a loss of life by fire in a fully sprinkled building, and that is testimony to what they can do. He explained that It's not just the occupants of the building. On a Sunday, with cars in the parking lot, people are about, there's a fire in that building and it's full of smoke.Then our first responders go in there.The first responders are putting their lives at risk too. He said so, it does make sense. Yes, everybody can get out, but at some point, those first responders are going to go in there — in that building-and looking for people. He noted that when our public library in town had a fire, we had firemen killed that went into that building to save people's lives. (Adding that happened before we had codes and sprinklers in buildings.) But that is another thought that the board needs to consider in their decision. Board member Gary Oatman asked if there were any occupancy restrictions on certain buildings, that if the Pickleball court had an event in the building that might attract a few hundred people(not just the normal 50-60 people to play pickleball). Then he asked if there are any type of codes that allow for specific use of the building. Marshal Berend said there are different types of assemblies that have different types of breakdowns. An example that he gave was a 12,000 square foot restaurant that can have over 100 people has to have suppression. A 100-occupant load is for all new construction. Mr. Townsend came to the microphone and said, in regard to occupancy, there is two things. One, you have the unit per area based on that. You also have an exemption given that for actual use, that's not always accepted but it is in the code. He said the primary thing is a unit of measure per person. A non-sprinkled building you have 0.25 inches per person.At 500 people, you need to have 2 exits minimum. That is in the code and is stated in the chart. But that width may be different. He added, if you have a pair of doors, and a pair of doors, that's one exit— not four doors. The width of it is aggregated with the total thing. On a sprinkled building, you only need 0.2 inches per person. The exit egress distance for a sprinkled building is 250 feet. The exit egress distance allowed in the corridor for a non-sprinkler building is only 200 feet. He said, you only get 50 feet more on a sprinkled building and added that he would think you would get twice that amount in a sprinklered building. Mr. Townsend finished by saying, "That's the ratio. So yeah, there is ratios and whatnot, but they also can, you know, as long as the exit egress, and there is plenty of doors here, that total aggregate of doors, you can add that up and they can tell you what the occupancy of the building could be to handle it. The building code always looks for occupancy first to make sure people can get out. That's what the emphasis is." With no further questions or comments, Chairman Lane asked if there was a motion. Board member Anthony Inman made a motion to deny the appeal, and Chairman Lane seconded the motion. Chairman Lane took the motion to vote, and with a vote of: 3— In favor of the motion (Lane, Inman, Oatman) 6—Opposed (Johnson, Hernandez, Moore, Tate,Grassi, Oechsner) 1 - Did not vote (Marchand) Work Session Notes 16 April 22, 2026 The motion did not pass, so Chairman Lane asked for another motion. Discussion between board members began again. In reference to Mr. Marchand's question whether Mr. Townsend was given options, Mr. Inman said he had done some research and had spoken to other design professionals and added that there are a lot of options for the question brought before them today. Physical separation between buildings,fire-rated walls, shrink the size of the addition slightly—lots of options,but the question of the day is—will we exclude the building from fire protection? Will we go around the code? He said there are a lot of options, that's just not what's on the table for discussion. At this point, Mr. Townsend went to City Attorney Aguon, and she presented his comment to the board. Mr. Townsend said that one of the members is currently receiving payment from a city contract with the city. That would be a conflict of interest. Attorney Aguon asked Mr. Inman if you had a conflict of interest, by being under contract with the city-is there any contract? It was asked of Mr. Townsend, because he is working on building renovations for the city? Mr. Townsend said yes. Attorney Aguon continued, and asked Mr. Inman if there is any conflict that needs to be addressed with regard to this particular matter? Mr. Inman replied, "I don't believe so."Attorney Aguon then asked Mr. Inman, since he is working under contract for the city, for building renovations, do you think that this affects your ability to judge this matter fairly, and Mr. Inman said he doesn't think so, adding that he can still be objective. The last question to Mr. Inman from Attorney Aguon was, is there any financial interest that needs to be shared with regard to this particular matter? Anything else that needs to be called to the attention of the public or Mr. Townsend? Mr. Inman replied, "I don't think so." Mr. Marchand then asked Director Medellin and Plans examiner Brandon Petersen, if they had walked through the process of options with Mr. Townsend? Director Medellin said yes, staff did have a meeting with the property owner and Mr. Townsend just to provide those options. This was shortly after the determination letter was sent to Mr. Townsend. This was just to bring the owner and Mr. Townsend in just to advise of other options and opportunities to explore. But the owner was really interested in that open concept for safety reasons. Mr. Townsend responded and said the optional firewall is an option, so is Chapter 14. There are other possible other options as well. He added,those are options. It's not one that I chose to use or employ because the legal premise is there, Chapter 14. So, he was applying that option as the means of doing so. Adding, they have plenty of exit egress to protect health, safety and welfare of the public. It's not just the fire department. He said they fight fires and go into structures all of the time not knowing. He said, that's great to recognize (the firefighters' safety) but asked if the people actually using the building, are they safe—which he answered his own question with, yes. He stated that there are no combustibles, concrete floor,bare walls, a net in the middle of the floor and they have six doors to get out. Every courtside has a door 40 feet away from it to get out. That's safer than the other side was, and it was cleared exemptions as well, using the same methodology of using it.A question about occupancy was asked of Mr. Townsend, and he said," if you total up the 3-foot doors times the distance and you multiply that out, that'll give you the occupant load that you can have on that half of the building. That doesn't Work Session Notes 17 April 22, 2026 include the whole building because there's other doors. So, all the doors aggregate together by its width determines the actual occupant load that those doors will handle. And if you need more doors, you put them in.That's okay because it allows that.You can have more doors than needed. If they are a door, they need to be identified as an exit. Anytime you have a door greater than what you need, I need 3 doors, well, I got 5, well, those, all those extra 2 doors need to have exit/ingress identifier. They need to operate and function even though they're not required. So, every door has to have an exit to it, every door has to have a panic device. Whether it's 1 door or 10 doors, People are getting out. But we got more than enough to accommodate an anticipation of, yeah, what, a couple hundred people? Don't know. You go by Cheddar's; they are exceeding their occupancy all the time. Because they're out in the foyer waiting outside, waiting in the foyer, you know. And you have the assembly occupancy is the only one that has it required to have a label to it, how many occupants. To count. And nobody does that. Okay, that's the only responsibility of the owner. But this building would accommodate the number of people greater than what a normal use would be. I can't, you know, figure out people waiting, 2 per court per side,and then staged, you know, by reservation. But if they use it on the weekend,on the maybes and the whatnots, That's everywhere. You can have that, you can place that everywhere, I don't know. But the deal is the doors are there. I can give you that number separately. I'll have to go back and total it up, and I can give you the number of what the actual capacity could be. Exit/egress distance is well below the 250 to 200 feet." Mr. Grassi asked Marshal Berend who calculates the occupancy load, Marshal Berend replied that the architect, Mr. Koen, turned in an occupant load, and we didn't argue it because he— Mr. Koen, the previous architect — specified a sprinkler system and a fire alarm. Marshal Berend stated, however, we do calculate and... (Mr. Grassi asked) ...it's your office's responsibility to enforce an occupant load? Marshal Berend replied, yes, we write citations for that type of stuff. Mr. Grassi asked if there was any discrepancy in Mr. Koen's and Mr. Townsend's occupancy— and said he didn't see that in the notes. Marshal Berend responded; Mr. Townsend never turned in an occupant load. Mr. Townsend said, "To answer his question, he's there to enforce it, he's not there to design it. He doesn't have the capacity to design. Anyway, anyone up here could probably apply it, but legally, by law, you don't. That's what the health, safety, and welfare that an architect fundamentally does is to determine that and determine that exit egress. I've done my job. I presented it. And if somebody does get hurt and injured, then litigation would be on my shoulders, not anybody else's. I think that's what Mr. Hemandez was trying to get to. I have responsibility. I have done my job correctly. You got to be able to accept it. The staff does not have the ability in a legal sense to do the occupant load. It's there in the building code for me to apply in design. I know how many doors I need_ But you can't go through a pre-design and say, 'Well, we need this, this, and this," because then they're designing it, not me. I use the tools that are available to me in accordance with law." Chairman Lane stated that they were moving on to make a motion. Mr. Hernandez said, "I want to make sure that everybody understood how we're voting on it. Okay, when we voted earlier, the motion was to approve the appeal, or deny the appeal. Okay, and so just to break that down does that mean to deny the requirement of the sprinkler system?" Director Medellin clarified," The appeal, if denied, would then reaffirm the city's position on the applicability of Chapter 14." And added, "if you approve the appeal, then you're saying that Chapter 14 is eligible for use." Work Session Notes 18 April 22, 2026 Mr. Grassi said, irrespective of the 1945 date, it is a viable pathway, and Director Medellin said that's what we are here for. Mr. Grassi followed up and said," That's the hang-up for me, is it? Irrespective perspective of 1945, there is an alternative pathway to achieve compliance." Mr. Inman replied that there is this code about existing buildings,and that's when you normally design a facility, but there is a process for butting up to—and this is a relatively new building (2009). So, the city doesn't have to choose to adopt that existing building code. There is already a path through the IBC to add on to new modern buildings, so the city can choose to adopt. Mr. Inman added,they are trying to be more open by adopting this existing building code, but it is an add-on feature. We don't have to use it. The state code is 2015. If you have a building and you add on, there are lots of options, but not sprinkling it opening it up to 24,000 feet(*square feet), that's not an option under state code. If this board chooses to move forward with this, the City Council will still have to approve this. Mr. Inman feels they will deny it because it can't go against State law. Mr. Grassi asked if Mr. Inman was saying the International Existing Building Code is not an approved code? Mr. Inman responded, no-the IBC is the State law for the whole State of Texas. Wichita Falls can choose to go stronger or more lenient, and there is already a provision in there for additions to modern buildings. The city can choose to adopt this existing building code, but they don't have to. The other one is made for old buildings, like downtown. They were trying to be a broader umbrella when they brought that in to be more lenient. Mr. Grassi said, "but it is a valid code, that we've adopted, but we added criteria to it to exclude a certain year date of building." Mr. Inman stated that he thinks a big piece of this is that this is a new building, less than 20 years old. In adding the addition, we can't say how the building will be used in five years, and if it's an A-2 or A-3 assembly building. If this goes back to a church, or a bar, whatever the use will be— and if there are 300-400 people in there, and we have said we are okay with no sprinklers— we don't get any choice in the future use. Mr. Tate asked if the board could put some restrictions on that. He said there are codes, dates and interpretations, where is the common sense? If you can cram 1,000 people in that building, that's not going to be safe. But we are trying to build a pickleball court, four courts, metal walls, and a concrete floor. There is not much that is flammable. He said this is a prime example of why Wichita Falls continues to be stagnant. If you put a bunch of people in that building,and it's unsafe, could the board put some restrictions around this particular deal that says if you go above this then you are in violation, and we need to come back to the table and put a suppression system in? Or if there is a change of use for the building, make them change the use, and then require them to have fire suppression? He said this is an example of why developers won't come to this city, because of the nonsense that goes on, and complete lack of common sense. Mr. Tate showed frustration and said,what kind of growth are we getting out of the city?This is just causing stagnation and it's appalling. He said it makes him sick to be a part of it. Mr. Townsend wanted to respond that the reason he brought it up was because of the 1945 date, so the board could address it. He said if it changes to a dance hall or something else, then the code would be applied to that occupancy. You can't forecast what it will be and what it will not be. It is what it is until it changes. When it does, the code will be applied then He continued and said "when you talk about the state code is for people who exercise adoption of Work Session Notes 19 April 22, 2026 100,000 population or more, it's the 2012, not the 2015. IBC is the standard in the city of Wichita Falls. They can't go below 2012 because that's the new code, right? It used to be the '03. So, but when you look at its adopted by reference under Chapter 1 of the IBC. You say, well, on Chapter 14, 1945 for this section, you can't forget it also applies to Chapters 3 through 13. So now we have no existing building code. The primary building code, that's the reason why this was pulled separate. It used to be in there.This is separate. If you don't have this, you don't have no existing building. However,903.2 says we're required in new buildings and structures.So, it covers it there anyway if you want to do that. Example. There's your way out if that's what you want to apply. In new buildings,this is not a new building, it's a new structure applied,not an independent structure, it's an extension. Code looks at it as an extension of the existing space. That's why its evaluated the way it is and given credit. As long as it's safe, it meets those measures, and it does, then it's okay to be. If it changes to something else, it changes under what it's going to be, because nobody knows what it'll be.That's just to be correct there, okay? Now, I'm going to submit, and I'm hoping this is the last one, but a 1945 date is on the table." He added, "the reason why I brought it up, because it's not a legal application. I hope I presented that. But your vote on this, on practicality, to accept the appeal for not requiring sprinkler systems because it was duly done. So, let's take a date, take that date out and do something else. It still applies. Put a different date in there, still applies. Put today's date in there, it still applies. Doesn't matter what the date is, it still applies. But it doesn't have to have the date in there to begin with. But if we don't, if you can't use 14 for buildings prior to 1945, then you can't use 3 through 13, because they go together. Look at the paragraph. You can't scratch one out. Now you go back to the building code where required in new buildings and structures. It's not intended for existing buildings. This is the extension of the existing." Marshal Berend spoke up and said, I think the issue here is the date, 1945. That's what the city council established 11 years ago. That's what the crux of the matter is. I have a hard time picking and choosing which ordinances and which codes 1 want to follow. Seems to me the ordinance is there, that's what we're supposed to follow. And there's a different route in order to change that ordinance. And Chapter 14, it may apply if the year was different, but even if it did apply, the largest the building can be sprinkled is less than what he's saying it is. I'm sitting here saying that I don't agree with his math. We can, we can sit here and do the math right now. I don't think y'all want to do that, but this is important. Mr. Townsend responded, "Where does my standard as an architect prevail? What good is my license if you have authority over me? It doesn't. My license allows me to do what I did and it is true and correct, and I'll stand up in court and testify to it.And that has to be accepted. That's the problem, not accepting what an architect does. Mr. Hernandez is correct in that. I have authority that's not being recognized. That's why I get passionate. That's why I get a little upset. You look at me like I'm a crazy guy. No, I'm being denied my right.And you sit there and debate. You look at practicality; you look at common sense. Mr. Ripley, common sense, yes. Director Medellin spoke about the question if the board could set a lower occupancy load and then, at a future date, change of use and re-assess? He said essentially, no. The way it is calculated, Mr. Townsend would calculate based on square footage, specific use, use classifications. That occupancy load would follow through as long as that use classification is in place. So, pickleball court, nightclub, so on and so forth,that number would remain unless there were changes to the actual floor plan or specific use calculations. Mr. Townsend stated that he will provide the exit/egress occupancy requirements. Director Medellin continued and Work Session Notes 20 April 22, 2026 said to the question of can the Marshal set a lower number, unfortunately no, he cannot. Our ordinance prohibits them from setting a lower occupancy load that would be calculated by those life, health, safety plans or in contradiction to those life, health,safety plans. Mr. Townsend asked if the Director could provide that information to him, and Director Medellin said he could. Mr. Oechsner said that he is an electrician, and he works in the city limits and outside of the city limits. When he has someone say, we don't have to have inspections done because we are out of the city (in the county), Mr. Oechsner tells them that has nothing to do with the way he wants to do his work, because he wants to do it correctly, and protect himself because it's his business/his family/his workers. There is a lot at stake for him to do something dangerous, to potentially get someone hurt and be liable. He defaulted that the most important is the licensed professional doing the work because they have the most at stake. The city inspectors do a great job, but they are only there 2,3,4 times, they don't see 99% of the installation. He said he thinks the board should approve the appeal because he has taken his liability on it. Mr. Hernandez asked Mr.Townsend if the plans require a sign to be placed showing the maximum occupant load? Mr. Townsend said he "doesn't know if he had included that at this point, and assembly occupancy should have that."Mr. Hernandez said he believes it is required to post what the maximum occupancy load is. Mr. Townsend responded, assembly it is, but it is not required in other occupancy. Mr. Hernandez said, which in this case it is. Mr. Townsend replied, "I didn't even address that, you know, the occupancy at that time with Mr. Koen wouldn't have changed much. Okay, because it's the same footprint, but You know, we added some doors to even allow to maintain that occupancy. So, he should have established an assembly occupant load at that point in time. But taking the architect of record down, yeah, I will provide that to Mr. Fabian." Mr. Hernandez added that he would recommend that a sign be placed inside the building and of course the owner has liability in that too. Mr. Moore made a motion to approve the appeal, and Mr. Oechsner seconded the motion. The Chairman took the motion to a vote, and the motion was approved with a vote of: 6-Approved (Johnson, Hernandez, Moore,Tate,Grassi, Oechsner) 4—Objected (Oatman, Inman, Lane, Marchand) Chairman Lane made the following statement: "As legally required by any appeal of this decision by the Construction Board of Adjustment and Appeal, must be timely filed in a court of competent jurisdiction or other proper legal venue, whether seeking remedy at law or inequity. Is there any other business before the board?Seeing none, there's no more business for today's meeting. We are now adjourned." IV. Adjourn Mr. Leo Lane adjourned the meeting at 3:43pm. :moo V:„,,,„,...1.-- I Tv .`tA)- Chairman Date