address the argument that the Plaintiffs have not obtained the necessary specific use permit to operate as a “dance hall or nightclub.” In the event that the Plaintiffs should choose to operate as a "dance hall or nightclub” and this indeed violates a valid City Ordinance, then the City may take appropriate action. 6 . This was the only reason stated for the revocation. All of the other justifications offered by the City were produced after the complaint was filed. 7 . Even though the Court looks to the Ordinance in reaching its conclusion that the BCCC does not contain a church, it is notable that other cases have held that religious worship does not automatically create a church for zoning purposes. See Coe v. City of Dallas, 266 S.W.2d 181, 183 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1953, no writ) (<HOLDING>); See Also Heard v. City of Dallas, 456 S.W.2d
holding that the sale of 440 square feet of a city park containing a ten commandments monument to a private organization was valid because there were no unusual circumstances holding that buie permitted the search of a bedroom fifteen feet down a hallway in which the suspect was arrested holding that electioneering approximately fifty feet from entrance to building did not violate the milchem rule where those waiting in line to vote were inside the building while the polls were open holding that a municipal corporation was forbidden to construct an auditorium in a park as such construction would practically destroy the lot as a park and convert its use into a public square holding that a proposed building that was to devote 2400 square feet to healing and prayer rooms but only 600 square feet to a church proper was not a church