[3D. Discuss ordinance amendments to provide a vesting clause for accessory structures constructed prior to building permitting requirements. (20 minutes)]

>> GOOD JOB. >> THINK Y'ALL VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> ALREADY. THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 3D, DISCUSSING LIMITS AND MOMENTS TO PROVIDE A BEST VESTING CLAUSE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMITTING REQUIREMENT. WE HAVE THREE COMMENT CARDS. ANYBODY ELSE WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARD OUTSIDE OF THE DOORS. FIRST COMMENTS CARD IS FROM BRIAN ABRAMS . JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE, AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. OKAY?

SPEAKING. >> ALL RIGHT. >> JUST A MOMENT, PLEASE.

OKAY. >> BRIAN ABRAMS -- WHAT STARTED WITH GRANDFATHERING IN THESE AND OTHER MOVEMENTS FOR THE CITY STARTING TO ENFORCE LINES, WHICH WILL CAUSE PEOPLE TO HAVE TO TEAR DOWN STUFF, SPEND MONEY, DRIVE AROUND THE CITY ALL OVER THE PLACE. CODE CAN CHANGE SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE. WASN'T DOESN'T IN '97, AND WHEN I MOVED IN, THE GENTLEMAN BEHIND ME HAD HIS SHED ALREADY , AND PRETTY SURE IT PROBABLY FALLS INTO THAT NOW. I DID ASK HIM TO PUSH IT

ON, TO AMEND IT. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> NEXT ON THE CARD, FROM DANNY HARVEY . IS THAT RIGHT?

>> HENNY. >> SITE. READ IT WRONG. Y'ALL HAVE THREE MINUTES RIGHT THERE.

SINCE EARLY 2007. WE MOVED INTO OUR PROPERTY WITH THE SHED. WE MAINTAIN THAT WE TAKE CARE OF -- I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, SOMETHING THAT'S DONE TO ENSURE THAT I'M GOING TO BE UP TO KEEP MY SHED. I JUST WANT TO -- THAT'S WHY I'M HERE. I SUPPORT WHAT THE MARKET IS TRYING TO DO , AND PROBABLY GOT 20 OR 30 IN THE AREA WITH SHEDS THAT ARE KIND OF CLOSE TO

US. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THEN, MARK ? YOU WILL HAVE THREE

[00:55:05]

MINUTES TO STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE. THANK YOU. >> MARK TESTER, AND I WOULD LIKE TO QUESTION TODAY , THIS CONCLUSION TO KEEP PETS IN THEIR SHEDS, AND ACCESSORY OF THINGS BUILT PRIOR TO THE ORDINANCE CHANGE OF 2019. THE ORDINANCE -- THE CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE DID NOT ADDRESS THE SAID ISSUES FOR HUNDREDS OF SHEDS THROUGHOUT THE CITY . IT IS UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT HOMEOWNERS TO HAVE NO SETBACK ISSUES, PROPERTY LINES , BUILDING SETBACKS, AND IF PERMITS WERE REQUIRED THROUGH THAT TIMEFRAME. IN MY PARTICULAR CASE, A SHED HAS BEEN THERE 18 YEARS I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT SINCE '98. NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN, IT'S AN ISSUE. MY SHED SURVIVED A TORNADO FROM A FEW YEARS AGO. KIND OF SHOWS THAT IT IS PRETTY DURABLE. RIGHT? SO, MY LOT IS KIND OF SPECIAL. VERY STEEP SLOPE.

THERE IS NO FLAT AREA AROUND THE SHED. WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF OPTIONS TO BEGIN WITH.

RIGHT? THAT'S WHY IT WAS BUILT IN THIS PARTICULAR PLACE THAT IT IS RIGHT NOW. SO, ALSO BE A HARD SHED TO MOVE. CURRENT NEIGHBORS LIKE IT. 20 LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM OTHER NEIGHBORS, WHICH WERE ALL SIGNED. NOBODY TURNED DOWN THE OPTION TO SIGN IT. THIS OVERSIGHT COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN CORRECTED WITH THOSE SHEDS AND ATTACHING THE 250 SQUARE FEET. I ASKED BILL AT THE TIME OF THE ORDINANCE CHANGE. ENFORCE RULES, BRINGING A LOT OF RESIDENTS MUCH GRIEF, WHILE STYMIEING THE FINANCIAL COST, AND COULD CAUSE MUCH MORE ISSUES IN THE FUTURE . REMOVAL OF THESE BUILDINGS WILL ALSO BE A SMALL REVENUE DROP FOR THE CITY , AS IT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM TAXABLE. PLEASE CONSIDER GRANDFATHERING A CAUSE FOR SHEDS FOR ACCESSORY CHARGES BUILT UNDER 250-SQUARE FEET PRIOR TO 19 -- APPOINTMENT PROCESS. NOT EVERYTHING IS COOKIE-CUTTER WHEN YOU MAKE SOME OF THESE REQUESTS. PROPERTIES -- NOTHING'S EVER THE SAME. RIGHT? SO, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IN THE AGENDA , THERE'S A FEW ERRORS. THE ACTUAL PRESIDENT CODE STATES 200-SQUARE FEET , NOT 290. ALSO, STATES ADOPTION OF THE PREVIOUS PERMIT, FROM 2019 , THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO ISSUES IN COMPLIANCE . I'M NOT SURE THAT'S CORRECT , BECAUSE I GOT ISSUES . JUST IN MY LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE, WE ARE IN VIOLATION ? THAT'S A PRETTY HIGH NUMBER.

>> THANK YOU. >> APPRECIATE IT. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> THANKS. GOOD EVENING, COUNSEL. AT THE REQUEST OF COUNSEL, ON THIS AGENDA ITEM PLACED TO DISCUSS THE ABILITY TO PASS AND PROVIDE A VESTING STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED FOR OUR BUILDING REQUIREMENT. SO, I KNOW IT WAS A REQUEST BY YOURSELVES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS VISITATION, WHICH IS TO ARTICULATE WHEN THE BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENT CAME IN PLACE . BUT I ALSO WANT TO EMPHASIZE AND START EXPLAINING THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS, BECAUSE THERE ARE COUPLE OF ORDINANCES I'M LOOKING AT, NOT JUST THE BUILDING CODE NOT JUST THAT, BUT ALSO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. SO, THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT DOES NOT ABSOLVE ANYBODY FROM A PERMIT FROM THE BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT AT THE FOREFRONT, AS I WALK THROUGH THIS, TO GIVE YOU SOME INFORMATION AS YOU START GETTING YOUR QUESTIONS TOGETHER, DECIDING WHICH WAY YOU WANT TO GO. SO, AS COUNSEL HAS EXPOSED AN INTEREST IN ASSESSING THE REQUIREMENTS TO CREATE A NON-CONFORMING STATUS FOR ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO 2019. AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT IS TO EQUIP YOURSELVES WITH THE ZONING CODE REQUIREMENT. PROCEDURE, STRUCTURES PRIOR TO 2019, THE IBC -- WHAT I'M REFERRING TO -- THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, AND THE IRC, RESIDENTIAL CODE, AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF ROWLETT, ACCEPTED THIS

[01:00:02]

RESEARCHER BELIEVES, 120 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE FROM BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.

REGARDLESS OF THE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS, WHETHER THEY WERE SOME OR NOT ANY ZONING REQUIREMENTS , WHICH WERE APPLICABLE, INCLUDING NEW BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, LONG-TERM RANGE, BUILDING HEIGHT AND ORIENTATIONS. IN ADDITION, ANY STRUCTURE IS REQUIRED TO ALSO COMPLY WITH THE FIRE CODE, BECAUSE ESPECIALLY IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, FOR THE SAFETY OF THE FIRE CODE, THE MOST COMMON VIOLATION THAT WE'VE SEEN IS , YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE THE PERMITTING REQUIREMENT BEFORE THE BUILDINGS, PERHAPS ON EASEMENTS, PERHAPS ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THEN, PERHAPS IN THE BUILDING SETBACK, ENCROACHING INTO THE BUILDING CENTER, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE REQUIRED TO COME HELP ASSESS, AND NOT REQUIRE SOMEONE TO GO BACK AND FILL ANYTHING. SO, INSTANCES WHERE THERE IS NO COMPLAINT , WHERE THERE IS NO VIOLATION , THE PERMIT REQUIREMENT IS NOT A REQUIRED PERMIT. THE REQUIREMENT IS NOT A REQUIRED PERMIT, WHICH STILL STANDS. I

WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. >> I'M STILL WORKING ON THAT. >> THAT'S OKAY. THE CITY DOES NOT REQUIRE BUILDING PERMITS FOR ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT IS 120 SQUARE FEET , AND WAS INSTALLED FOR 2019. THERE IS NO RETROACTIVE REQUIREMENT TO BRING THOSE INTO COMPLIANCE THEY ARE ALREADY DEEMED TO BE IN A NONCONFORMING, SO THEY DO HAVE INVESTING LAWS OR STATUS.

THE CODE BROUGHT TO THE CITY'S STAFF ATTENTION, THERE'S A ZONING BUILDING FIRE CODE VIOLATION OF ISSUE, AND IT IS OUR ROLE TO THEN ASSESS AND DETERMINE COMPLIANCE , BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT A RESULT OF THE REQUIREMENTS TO COMPLY WITH THESE SPECIFIC CODES. AGAIN, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN ALWAYS GRANT VARIANCES TO THE ZONING REGULATIONS, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEM , REDUCING THE BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENT, BY REGULATING THE BILLING SETBACK REQUIREMENT, PROVIDING RELIEF TO HIGH -LOT COVERAGE, A VERY COMMON ROLE FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.HOWEVER, IT CANNOT REQUIRE AN EXEMPTION FOR THE BUILDING, BUT CAN APPEAL THE DETERMINATION OF THE CHIEF BUILDING . THE COST OF A PERMIT TO REVIEW AND INSPECT FOR THE SAID PERMIT AND INSTALLATION THE BUILDING AND REVIEWED EARLY INSPECTION OF THAT IS ONLY $75, WHICH , AS WE PRESENTED THIS TO COUNSEL IN 2019, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, WAS A COST-EFFECTIVE SOLUTION TO EQUIP OUR CITIZENS WITH THE TOOLS THEY NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT THE BUILDING WAS, INDEED, LOCATED OR INSTALLED WITHOUT VIOLATING THOSE SPECIFIC AVENUES OR REQUIREMENTS. BY EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY, SOMEONE INSTALLED A FENCE ON A BUILDING ON TOP OF THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THE MATERIALS OF THE FENCE WOULD BE CONSIDERED A FIRE SAFETY ISSUE. THERE IS NO CURRENT ELEMENT IN THAT, FOR THE PROXIMITY TO ADJACENT RESIDENTS TO BE A SAFETY ISSUE. ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE HAD BUILDING SETBACKS AS WELL. THE PURPOSE OF THE PERMIT IS TO VERIFY WHETHER THE BUILDING IS LOCATED INSIDE THAT REGION FOR THE DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LINES, BUILDING SETBACKS TYPICALLY SAFETY-BASED .ALBEIT, THEY ALSO SERVE AS AN AESTHETIC PURPOSE.

BUILDINGS THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED MORE CLOSE TO EACH OTHER TO INCREASE THE RISK OF THE THREAT OF FIRE, BUILDING AND FIRE CODES REQUIRING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES THAT ARE LESS THAN FIVE FEET FROM A PROPERTY LINE TO BE INSTRUCTED USING A ONE-HOUR FIRE-RATED ASSEMBLY SYSTEM. THIS HELPS TO BLOCK THE SPREAD OF THE FIRE FROM BUILDING CLOSER TO A PROPERTY LINE. SO, WITH THAT DATA , WITH THAT INFORMATION , I GUESS THE RECOMMENDATION IS , THE COUNSELOR CONSENSUS, TO AMEND THE PRESCRIBED REQUIREMENTS, AND THEN HAVE

THE ZONING ELEMENTS . >> OKAY. I WAS THE ONE WHO ASKED THIS TO BE ON THE AGENDA. I SHOULD PROBABLY TALK FIRST TO IT. AND I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR A PERMIT YOU KNOW, YOU SIT THERE. THE PURPOSE OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS IS SO THAT PEOPLE WILL BE AWARE OF THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS, AT LEAST ALL OF THESE OTHER CODES, WHICH THE AVERAGE PERSON IS NOT AWARE OF WITHOUT THE REQUIREMENT THING. SO, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING -- AND IF THEY CAME TO MY ATTENTION -- BECAUSE OF MARK'S SITUATION -- THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT MARK. THIS IS ABOUT EVERYBODY IN THE CITY WHO HAS THIS PROBLEM, WHICH IS BASICALLY DUE TO THE CITY NOT REQUIRING PERMITS PREVIOUSLY. RIGHT? SO, THEY'RE NOT EVEN

[01:05:08]

GOING TO BE IN THE CATCH-22 WITH A SITUATION LIKE THIS, AND I'M JUST LOOKING HERE FOR SOME WAY TO GIVE THEM SOME KIND OF RELIEF, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY HAVE A STRUCTURE THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR 18 YEARS . ALMOST TWO DECADES WITH NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER. YOU KNOW, IS IT A SAFETY ISSUE? WELL, IT HASN'T CAUSE A SAFETY PROBLEM IN 18 YEARS, BUT I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, IT'S REASONABLE TO REQUIRE THAT, MAYBE THAT THEY GO BACK AND DO WHAT THE FIRE MARSHAL SUGGESTS IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT COME UP TO FIRE CODE. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL. AGAIN, I THINK THAT THESE PEOPLE WHO CALLED AND SAID, DO I NEED A PERMIT TO DO THIS AND WERE TOLD, NO, GO AHEAD AND DO IT, YET HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO KNOW THAT ALL

THESE REQUIREMENTS WERE IN PLACE? >> SURE. ACTUALLY. VALID QUESTION. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE ENJOYING YOUR PROPERTY, FOR INSTANCE, WHEN WE HAVE SEEN INSTANCES WITH PROPERTY OWNERS WILL HAVE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WHICH DID NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT AT THAT TIME. HOWEVER, SLOWLY EXPANDING UPON IT, ENLARGING IT, THAT, IF IT'S 250 SQUARE FEET OR MORE, IT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRING A PERMIT . SO, THE ISSUE IS, YES, ABSOLUTELY. IT'S VERY HARD TO KNOW, AM I SUPPOSED TO BE 3 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, THE SITE, OR 20 FEET FROM THE FRONT? WHAT IS IT? THAT IS WHY WE INSTITUTED THIS REQUIREMENT, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT, IN THE PAST, IT DID CAUSE ISSUES. HOWEVER, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPROACH THE ADJUSTMENTS AND SAY, THIS HAS BEEN AN EXISTING SITUATION FOR X NUMBER OF YEARS. DO WE KEEP IT, LOOK AT THAT AVENUE, AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, IF THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH THE MATERIAL THAT NEEDS TO BE APPLIED TO MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A FIRE ASSEMBLY SYSTEM, AND SO ON, IS IT NECESSARY, IF NECESSARY? SO, ABSOLUTELY.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, I THINK PART OF THE DECISION THE BOARD MADE, AS WELL, WAS YOU ARE CORRECT. THE ORIGINAL BUSINESS WAS BUILT APPROXIMATELY 2000 -- HOWEVER, THAT MEANS, IN 2016, TWICE THE SIZE THAT IT WAS. WHEN IT WAS EXPANDED, IT WAS EXPANDED LARGER THAN 200 SQUARE FEET, AND AT THAT TIME, IT DID NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT FOR ANY BUILDING THAT WAS UNDER 200 SQUARE FEET , BUT THIS WAS MORE THAN 200 SQUARE FEET. IT WAS INCREASED TO A LARGER SIZE.

THAT'S WHAT CAUSED STAFF TO TAKE ACTION . >> WE KNOW THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS -- THE MAJORITY ACTUALLY VOTED TO GRANT THAT VARIANCE, BUT IT REQUIRED A

SUPER MAJORITY TO DO. >> RIGHT. >> CORRECT.

>> SO, THAT'S ANOTHER REASON THAT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, THE BOARD WAS VERY DIVIDED ON THIS

TOO. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO BRING IT UP TO THE COUNCIL. >> STAFF'S CONCERN IS SAFETY.

THAT IS PARAMOUNT TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF NOT JUST THE FACILITY ITSELF, BUT THE ADJACENT AREAS

AS WELL. >> YEAH AGREED. IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?

AHEAD, BRIAN. >> SORRY. SO, THE FIRE CODE -- ONE-HOUR FIRE-RATED ASSEMBLY -- CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THAT IS, IN GENERAL, WHAT THAT MIGHT BE, SPECIFICALLY, IN TERMS OF

THE SITUATION THAT MAY ARISE IN THIS CONVERSATION? >> TYPICALLY, A ONE-OUR FIRE ASSEMBLY IS GOING TO BE APPROVED BY THE NATIONAL TERRITORY, SUCH AS LABORATORIES, OR THE TWO BIGGEST LABORATORIES TO TEST THOSE ASSEMBLIES. OKAY. I SOUND LOUD IN YOUR EARS. I WOULDN'T TAKE THAT AROUND. ME, IS THIS BETTER? OKAY. THE INTERTECH AND UL THEN USE A STANDARD TO TEST THE FIREWALLS . THEY PUT A FLAME ON IT, COME BACK, PUT A FIRE HOSE ON IT, AND IF IT PASSES THAT, IT PASSES THE FIRE RATING TEST.

TYPICALLY SPEAKING, ONE-OUR FIREWALL IS GOING TO BE A LAYER OF 5/8 SHEET ROCK, STUDS BASED , AND ANOTHER LAYER OF 5/8 S, SHEET ROCK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STUDS. ALL OF THAT CAN VARY. THAT'S, TYPICALLY, WHAT'S INVOLVED WITH THE ONE-HOUR FIRE CALL.

[01:10:10]

>> I KNOW IT'S EASY TO LOOK AT THIS AND SAY, THIS IS A ONE-OFF, BUT THE TOUGH PART OF THIS IS MAKING A DECISION THAT IMPACTS EVERYBODY, BECAUSE AS THE SPEAKERS MENTIONED TONIGHT, THERE'S HUNDREDS OF SHEDS , ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THIS CAN POTENTIALLY IMPACT THEM. SO, I'M CURIOUS -- WITH THE QUESTION ABOUT SEEKING CONSENSUS -- WHAT IS THE ASK? WHAT TYPE OF CONSENSUS WOULD WE SEEK TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM? IT'S NOT JUST TURNING BACK THE CLOCK AND SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO ILLUMINATE THE 2019 CHANGE.

WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE ZONING STANDARDS, BUSINESS, RESIDENTIAL, ALLOWING THE BUSINESS SETBACKS AND ALL THAT, AND HOW DO YOU, AS A ONE-OFF SOLUTION, SOLVE ALL OF

THE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN THE CITY IN ONE FOUL SWEEP? >> COUNCIL MEMBER, I WILL LOOK TO YOU AND SAY, THE REASON, AGAIN, THE REASON WHY WE HAVE THESE REGULATIONS IS IN LIGHT OF THE SAFETY OF THE ADJACENT AREAS. USING THAT TERM DELIBERATELY. I KNOW YOU TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION, BUT IT'S VERY HARD TO ABSORB ANYBODY OF THIS ZONING REGULATION. THAT'S THE POINT OF IT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT -- WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT -- WHETHER IT'S A ZONING OR CODE VIOLATION -- THEY DON'T JUST HAPPEN, THEY NEED TO KNOW THE REQUIREMENTS.

AGAIN, THERE'SALWAYS AN EVOLUTION THAT GOES INTO NEEDING TO ENSURE, BUT AGAIN, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS VERY METHODICALLY , QUITE QUICKLY, FOR WHAT THE REQUEST IS, WHAT IS ON THE PROPERTY, WHY IT'S ON THE PROPERTY. THEN, THERE MIGHT BE HUNDREDS OF SHEDS THAT WE'RE NOT AWARE OF. BUT AS WE LEARN OF THEM, WHICH I TO DIRECT THE FORCE. NOT PARTIALLY. SOME ARE OKAY. IN SOME INSTANCES, WE HAD ACCESSORIES INSTALLED AT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THEN, ON TOP OF EASEMENTS. NOW, IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE WE DON'T COMPROMISE THAT FURTHER. SO, I CANNOT ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO REMAIN IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, SO IF SOMEONE HAS INSTALLED A SLAB ON AN EASEMENT, THAT'S VERY COMPLICATED. YES, WE ALREADY HAVE SITUATIONS WHERE SOMEONE IS INSTALLING A 600-SQUARE-FOOT ACCESSORY EXTENSION, BUT WE'VE FOUND OUT, JUST MAKE SURE WE GET THE PERMITS , MAKE SURE YOU USE THE RIGHT MATERIAL SO, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS A GREAT AVENUE TO TRY TO SEEK -- ADJACENCIES, REQUIRING THE RIGHT MATERIALS OR HAVING THEM, THAT IS AN OPTION TOO. SITTING IN THIS CHAIR, I AM TRY TO FIND A SOLUTION OTHER THAN THE TOOLS ALREADY PRESCRIBED TO YOURSELVES. I KNOW THAT SOUNDS HARSH, BUT THAT'S MY RELIC, AND THOSE ARE MY BOUNDARIES.

>> AND TO CLARIFY THAT, AS WELL, THE ONLY CHANGE THAT OCCURRED IN 2019 WAS THAT PERMITS WERE NOW REQUIRED . WAS NO CHANGE IN THE SETBACK REPORT OR ANY OTHER REQUIREMENT.

>> BUT THAT CHANGE WAS WHAT GAVE PEOPLE THE INFORMATION THEY NEEDED IN ORDER TO COMPLY . YOU KNOW, AND AS YOU SAID, NOW, THE PERMITTING PROCESS, NOW, WE WOULDN'T HAVE THIS

PROBLEM. >> IF THE COULD -- >> WELL --

>> THEY STILL HAVE -- EXEMPTING PEOPLE FROM GETTING HER MEDS. WE WOULD BE EXEMPTING SHEDS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT PRIOR TO THE PERMITTING PROCESS WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT THEY HAVE HAD TO HAVE MET THE PRIOR REQUIREMENTS, AND THAT THEY COULD BE ON EASEMENTS AND THAT KIND OF

STUFF. >> AND THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS? THERE IS A TOOL AVAILABLE, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST THE NATURE -- THAT TOOL DOESN'T SEEM TO WORK.

>> IN THIS SITUATION. >> GO AHEAD. YOU SEEM LIKE YOU WANT TO SEE IS A BUNCH OF

STUFF. COME ON >> WE HAVE A TOOL THAT WORKS, BUT YOU DIDN'T GET THE ANSWER YOU WANTED. SO, THE TOOL DOESN'T WORK SO, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IS FOR THAT. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND HAVE A SUPER MAJORITY IN TOOL WORDS. YOU DIDN'T GET THE OUTCOME YOU

WANTED TO SEE. >> BUT THAT'S WHAT THE STATE SAYS.

>> THAT'S WHAT THE STATE SAYS, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IS THERE TO ARGUE , MAKE VALID POINTS. YOU KNOW, WE TRY TO FIX SOMETHING LATER THAT IS THERE? YES. BUT WE WEREN'T ABLE

[01:15:01]

TO CATCH IT. IT'S UNFAIR. I AGREE, THESE PEOPLE DID SOMETHING, AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE THAT. BUT HOW DO YOU GO BACK AND RETROACTIVELY FIX THAT? YOU CAN'T. JUST TOO MANY OUT THERE.

NOW, YOU HAVE THESE RULES THAT ARE IN PLACE, THEY HAVE TO BE ENFORCED, AND THE VARIANCE IS THERE, FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. THERE'S A PROCESS BY WHICH TO GO FOR.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE PROCESS IS THERE FOR THAT REASON. AND SO, THEY NEED TO GO THROUGH THE

PROCESS. >> I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT OF VIEW, I JUST DISAGREE WITH IT.

I BELIEVE THERE IS ANOTHER AVENUE WE COULD USE TO GIVE THEM ROOM.

>> WHAT'S THE OTHER AVENUE? YOU WANT COUNSEL TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS?

>> NO. I WANT TO CREATE A GRANDFATHER CLAUSE, BEST IN-CLAUSE, OBJECTIVELY .

>> THAT HAS LIABILITY ISSUES, BECAUSE THE CITY OFFICE NOW YOU'RE SAYING, ALL THESE PEOPLE

ARE A LIABILITY, AND THEY CAN'T? >> NO. IT WOULD BE INSTALLATION THAT HAS TO BE BROUGHT TO THE FIRE CODE. ESTABLISH AND THAT IT IS NOT IN CITY EASEMENTS.

YOU CAN PUT AS MANY STEP RELATIONS AND AS YOU WANT. >> THE PERMIT, I'M STRUGGLING HERE. I'M GOING TO SAY THE THING THAT IS REALLY ABOVE ALL PERSONS PRESUMED TO KNOW THE LAW. BEFORE WE WERE BEING ASKED TO DO THIS, LEGITIMIZE WHAT IS EFFECTIVELY A LEGAL AVENUE, WHEN DID WE REQUIRE PERMITS IN 2019? WHETHER OR NOT, THAT DOESN'T MEAN PROPERTY OWNERS ARE RESULTS FROM THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS AND BEING AWARE OF THEM. SOME OF THE REZONING REQUIREMENTS ARE -- PROPERTY OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY. WE DIDN'T ENFORCE IT? THAT'S NOT OUR FAULT. THERE'S A CASE OUT THERE, GENERALLY, THE CITY OF DALLAS ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED IN AN HOMEOWNERS APPLICATION, AND THE RIGHT APPLICATION WHEN THE HOUSE WAS TALKING WITH THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF A PARTY AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS. THE SUPREME COURT HAD TO MOVE THE HOUSE.

MISTAKE MADE BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, NOT AGAINST THE CITY. WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A SITUATION WHERE BUNCH OF PEOPLE BUILT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT WAS IN VIOLATION OF CIVIL REQUIREMENT. WHETHER THEY ARE THERE FOR SAFETY REASONS OR FOR OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, FOR PAPERS, IF THEY BUILT A STRUCTURE THAT EXCEEDED THE SET REQUIREMENTS, WHICH THEY NEVER SHOULD HAVE DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE ONLY WAY IT CAN BE LEGITIMIZED , SORT OF AN AMNESTY ORDINANCE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, LEGITIMIZING POTENT BEHAVIOR, IS UP TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. WE HAD THE HEARING, CONDUCTED A FULL IN FAVOR HEARING WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE, ALL OF THE JUSTIFICATIONS, AFTER NOTICE, AND IT DIDN'T WORK? WELL, THAT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE BOH. IF THEY DECLINED TO GRANT VARIANCE, THEN IN THEIR OPINION, THERE WASN'T SUFFICIENT UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, THEY COULDN'T JUSTIFY RELAXING THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

>> I RECOGNIZE THAT WHAT YOU SAY IS LEGALLY CORRECT. I DO BELIEVE IT'S MORALLY AND

ETHICALLY . >> ONE OTHER THING THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED -- I KNOW THERE'S A CONCERN THAT IT DID NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT. WHAT I SAID EARLIER, IT WAS OVER 200 SQUARE FEET , WHICH REQUIRED A PERMIT . SO, IT WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT, WHICH HE DID REQUIRE A

PERMIT. >> WHICH, THEN, WE COULD HAVE HELPED SOLVE SOME OF THE HICCUPS. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO BE SITE-SPECIFIC WE WANTED TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSIONS, WHERE WE KNOW THAT THE IMPETUS OF THIS CONVERSATION IS HERE .SO, IT IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION, BUT ON THE FLIPSIDE, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO MAINTAIN SOME SENSE OF VIRGINITY.

>> SO, THE PROCESS -- AND I UNDERSTAND WHY -- IT IS BASICALLY AS LONG AS NOBODY COMPLAINS , WE'RE OKAY, BUT IF SOMEBODY COMPLAINED ABOUT IT, OR IF YOU ARE OUT THERE FOR

ANOTHER REASON THEN YOU SEE IT, THEN IF -- >> RIGHT. WE RECEIVED A

COMPLAINT? >> IT DOESN'T FOLLOW -- >> I KNOW. I SAID, YOU KNOW, I

UNDERSTAND WHY. THAT'S THE CASE, BUT IT'S NOT FAIR . >> SO, I'M JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THIS. SO, WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE IS NOT NECESSARILY A SETBACK ISSUE.

RATHER, A SIZE ISSUE. IS THAT WHAT THIS IS? >> IT'S BOTH.

>> STATE-SPECIFIC TO THAT SPECIFIC ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS, HONESTLY TO THAT POINT. BUT TO TAKE AN EXAMPLE AS IT RELATES TO THIS DISCUSSION, WE HAVE A SITUATION, OR A SCENARIO WHERE, YES, IN 2019, WE DID NOT REQUIRE PERMITS FOR BUILDINGS THAT WERE LESS THAN THAT SECOND SIZE. PROPERTY OWNER DECIDED TO INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THAT BUILDING THAT DID WARRANT A SETBACK. A PARTY, THAT WANTED A PERMIT .

REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, THE INSTALLATION OF THE BUILDING WAS IN VIOLATION

[01:20:03]

OF THE ZONING SETBACK >> GOTCHA. >> ANYWAY, THE MATERIAL OF THAT FACADE WAS ALSO IN VIOLATION, WHERE THERE WERE A NUMBER OF INFRACTIONS .

>> SO, A SETBACK IS A SETBACK. IF YOU ARE BUILDING WITHIN THE SETBACK, DOES IT MATTER WHETHER YOU SOUGHT , OR DID NOT SEEK, PERMISSION FROM THE CITY? THE FACT IS, THAT VIOLATION EXISTS, AND TO GRANT A FLAT WAIVER TO THOSE STRUCTURES PRIOR TO A CERTAIN DATE WOULD BE LEGALIZING ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION , AND FOR THE SAKE OF SAFETY, IN TERMS OF HOW WE REQUIRE BUILDINGS TO BE CONSTRUCTED, THAT'S REALLY NOT THE MOST APPROPRIATE PATH FOR US, AS A CITY, TO PREEMPT , I GUESS YOU COULD SAY, THE LEGALITY OF SETBACKS.

>> FROM THAT STAFF PERSPECTIVE. YES. >> RIGHT.

>> KNOWING THAT THERE'S A SAFETY VALVE, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, BOARD OF APPEALS.

>> NOT JUST FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE. IT IS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY. NOT THAT I DON'T APPEAL FOR INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING TO US TONIGHT. YOU KNOW, ENDURING HARDSHIP BECAUSE OF THIS , IF IT IS HUNG OUT, THEY HAVE TO FIX THIS. BUT AGAIN, YEAH. IT SUCKS. IT'S NOT FAIR, BUT DOESN'T SEEM FAIR. IT IS FAIR. IT IS JUST A HARDSHIP TO THEM. BUT THE LEGAL ADVICE IS THERE. THERE'S AN AVENUE FOR WHICH TO DO IT , AND FOR SOME REASON, THEY'RE WRONG ABOUT

THAT. >> 18 YEARS AGO , WAS THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT THE SAME

THEN AS IT IS NOW? >> THE ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED IN THE SEASON , WITHIN THE SAME

TIMELINE. >> SO, DO WE HAVE A TIMELINE OR YEAR THAT THE CURRENT

SETBACK REQUIREMENT WAS ENACTED? >> IT WAS DEFINITELY IN 2006, THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTION. I DON'T KNOW THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY, WHETHER IT IS THAT

STREET ZONING. >> WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT SETBACK REQUIREMENT WAS PRIOR

TO 2006? PRIOR TO 2006, WHAT WAS THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT? >> I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK. I'M GOING TO ASSUME, IT WAS THE SAME. I KNOW THERE WAS VERY LITTLE CHANGE IN SETBACKS THEN.

>> I THINK WE WOULD BE APPROACHING A DIFFERENT KIND OF CONVERSATION IF A STRUCTURE WAS BUILT WITH A DIFFERENT SETBACK REQUIREMENT , AND PRIOR TO 2006 , WHERE NOW, WE'RE SAYING,

YOU GOT TO BRING IT TO THE CURRENT SET. >> SURE. WE WOULD APPLY THE

ZONING SETBACK FROM THAT TIME , DEPENDING -- >> SO, IT'S ALREADY GROUNDED IN

THAT CASE? >> YES. LET'S SAY, IT'S A ZONING ORDINANCE, INSTEAD OF THAT FIVE-YOUR SETBACK, THEY CAN PLAN ON THE PROPERTY, AND WE WOULD ENFORCE IT, NOT THE

CURRENT ZONE. >> YEAH GOTCHA. THEN, OKAY. >> THE OTHER ISSUE TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT IT WAS EXPANDING IN 2016. SO, DEFINITELY, MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF

2006 FOR THE ORDINANCE. >> BUT IT WAS BUILT IN 2004? >> THEN, EXPENDED.

>> THEN EXPANDED. SO, THEN YOU HAVE A WHOLE OTHER ARGUMENT. THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. ANY OTHER

QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? >> UNFORTUNATELY, AND I HAVE TALKED TO MR. TOSH, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A CITY-WIDE POLICY TO RELIEVE A SINGLE HOMEOWNER'S ISSUE. SEEMS LIKE, TO ME, UNLESS THERE IS SOME SOLUTION THAT HASN'T BEEN BROUGHT FORTH TO RELIEVE THIS ONE ISSUE, THEN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A WIDER POLICY. IS THAT CORRECT? THERE'S NO WAY TO SOLVE THIS .

>> THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS OFF. AGAIN, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO REVIEW THIS

INFORMATION . >> WITH THAT BEING SAID, I REALLY HESITATE ALONG THE SAME LINES AS WHAT CULTS NUMBER GRUBISICH SHARED. THIS CAN HAVE MANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. A CAN OF OTHER RESIDENTS MEETING UP OR SAYING, THERE'S THIS SHED THAT CAUGHT FIRE NEXT TO MY HOUSE ON MY MAY BE SOME EXCEPTIONS WHERE WE CAN ADD THEM TO THE POLICY, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK THAT IN AN ATTEMPT TO SOLVE ONE ISSUE, WE MIGHT UNCOVER A LOT MORE. AND I REALLY DO FEEL FOR THE HARDSHIP. I JUST DON'T SEE A SOLUTION. PRIOR TO THE

[01:25:01]

EXEMPTION . >> WE DON'T -- SORRY. WE HAD WHAT?

>> GOING TO GO CHANGE OR MAKE EXCEPTIONS , GOING TO TRY TO BUILD THE ISSUES GOING

FORWARD. >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION, JUST TO MAKE SURE , REMIND ME OF WHAT

THE APPEALS PROCESS IS FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. >> IT WOULD BE --

>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR. >> RIGHT. IT WOULD BE A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO REQUEST IT TO CHANGE INTO THIS CASE. >> IT COULD BE APPEAL FOR THE

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT'S DECISIONS. >> RIGHT. THE LAYOUT FOR THE ORDINANCE READS YOU HAVE A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME TO REQUEST A REHEARING. WE WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS, AND AGAIN, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CHOSE NOT TO RE-HEAR THE CASE.

>> THEY HAVE EXHAUSTED THE PROCESS? >> THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL

THE STAKEHOLDERS. >> RIGHT. >> THE STATUTE OF APPEALS, EVEN IF WE HAVE A NUMBER OF ORDINANCES STATE LAW, STATE LAW REQUIRES THEM TO FILE THE LAWSUIT, PETITION THERE, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS THAT RIGHT TO APPEAL, BUT THEY'VE GOT TO ACT. IF THEY DON'T , THEY HAVE EXHAUSTED ALL OF THEIR REVENUES BY NOT ACTING

QUICKLY. >> SO WE CAN ADJUST IT ALL TONIGHT.

>> RIGHT. >> GOTCHA. >> SO, WHERE I'M AT IS IF THE STRUCTURE WAS BUILT PRIOR TO THE CURRENT SETBACK FROM WHAT WE HAVE NOW, THEN BASED ON PREVIOUS SETBACK REQUIREMENT, BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PREVIOUS SETBACK REQUIREMENT,

THEN THEY ARE ALREADY CONSIDERED GRANDFATHERED IN? >> YES.

>> AND SO, THE ISSUE HERE, THIS PARTICULAR CASE , WAS THAT THERE WAS AN EXPANSION, WHICH IS CONSIDERED YOU NOW HAVE TO BRING YOUR PROPERTY UP TO CODE AND MEET THE NEW SETBACK

REQUIREMENT, WHICH WAS NOT YOU KNOW -- >> REGARDLESS OF TIME OF ADOPTION, THE SETBACK DEPARTMENT REQUIRES WHETHER IT IS THREE FEET OR FIVE FEET. IN THIS CASE, WASN'T THE SAME. WHAT I'M SAYING IS, REGARDLESS, EVEN THOUGH THE PERMIT DOES NOT

REQUIRE MORE EXPANSION, THE VIOLATION ALREADY STOOD. >> OKAY.

>> THEN, WITH THE EXPANSION, AGAIN, THE PERMIT WAS NOT FILED FOR. ON TOP OF THAT, THE

MATERIAL WAS OFF WITH THE SETBACK VIOLATION. >> YEAH GOTCHA. OKAY.

>> GOOD QUESTION. IF I'M CORRECT, ASSUMING THAT THE SETBACK WAS SET WHEN THE LOT

WAS PLANNED? >> THAT IS CORRECT. UNLESS WAIVED BY THE BOARD OF

ADJUSTMENT . >> OKAY. IN MY FOR THE CORRECT IN READING THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CANNOT ALTER THE FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS? CAN I PROVIDE A WAIVER TO FIRE CODE?

GET THAT FROM YOUR SUMMARY? >> THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR ALTERNATE MATERIALS AND METHODS AS AN APPEAL TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, OR THE FIRE MARSHAL , BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUILDING

CODE OR THE FIRE CODE. >> AND TO PROVIDE FURTHER AMPLIFICATION TO THAT

STATEMENT, THOSE ELEMENTS WERE ALSO DISCUSSED. >> SO, LET ME SAY, IN

>> LANGUAGE, IF THE SETBACK IS 5 FEET, BECAUSE OF FIRE REGULAR SINCE SAYING, 5 FEET, THEY CAN'T CHANGE THE 5 FEET.THEY CAN CHANGE THE DECISION ABOUT THE MATERIALS THAT MEET THE FIRE ASSEMBLY. IS THAT CORRECT? THE ONE-HOUR FIRE ASSEMBLY. IF THEY CAME BACK WITH AN ALTERNATE METHOD OR MATERIALS, SAYING, THEY CAME BACK WITH A DILUTION SPRING-AHEAD THAT WAS GOING TO BE PLACED AT THE PROPERTY LINE SO THAT, IF THERE WAS A FIRE, IT WOULD DOUSE AT THE PROPERTY LINE. IT WOULD PROVIDE THE SAME LEVEL OF PROTECTION AT THE PROPERTY LINE FROM A FIREWALL, THEN THEY

CONSIDER THAT? >> WELL, THE FIREWALL REGULARLY --

>> SORRY. SO, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? OKAY. SO, I THINK, IN TERMS OF A CONSENSUS, IS THERE ANY INTEREST TO AMEND OR CHANGE OR ADD A VESTING CLAUSE TO THIS

[01:30:06]

ORDINANCE? WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR A RESIDENT WITH A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE TO GO

BACK AND START OVER AGAIN FROM THE VERY BEGINNING? >> THEY COMMITTED REQUIREMENTS?

WAIVER AS PART OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS. >> SO, WAIVERS --

>> THE ORDER OF ADJUSTMENT. >> IT SAYS, IT HAS ALREADY BEEN HEARD.

>> IT'S BEEN HEARD ALREADY. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE -- >> ADJUSTMENT, IN TERMS OF --

>> I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. ANY OTHER? NO? ANY CONSENSUS? OTHER THAN THAT? ANY CHANGES

PENDING? >> THAT'S NOT A CONSENSUS. >> WHAT WOULD BE A RECOMMENDED

CHANGE? >> WHAT I SAID, THE GRANDFATHERING CONCEPT WOULD STIPULATE THAT WHICH WOULD EXEMPT THE SHEDS BUILT PRIOR TO THE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS, BUT STABILITY THE FACT THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A FIRE CODE. THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THIS

-- FIRE CODE -- >> NOT BUILT -- >> NOT BILLED ON AN EASEMENT.

YES. >> DOES ANYBODY WISH TO SUPPORT THAT?

>> HE ALREADY SAID -- >> IT WOULD BE REALLY HARD TO DRAFT ONE OF THOSE, AND HARD TO ENFORCE. IS ONE THING YOU CAN DO IT OFF AND, I GOT NOTHING WITH ORDINANCES. AT LEAST FOR THIS REQUEST. YOU CAN ALWAYS REAPPLY . THE RESULTING CHANGE COULD BE DENIED BY THE COUNCIL, YOU HAVE TO WAIT A YEAR FOR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES ON OBLIGATIONS. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS A PROHIBITION IN OUR CORRECT REGULATIONS THAT THAT COULD REAPPLY TO.

>> SO, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I WAS GOING WITH MY QUESTION. CAN HE BE APPLIED FOR A PERMIT, WHICH HE WOULD NEED TO BUILD A STRUCTURE OF THE SIZE HE IS TALKING ABOUT, OR FOR A RESIDENT IN HIS SITUATION TO TALK ABOUT, AND ALSO, AS A PART OF THAT PROCESS, GO THROUGH SOME TYPE OF VARIANCE TO SEEK A VARIANCE AGAINST A PARTICULAR REGULATION AS SUCH?

>> A VARIANCE AGAINST THE VARIANCE? I DEFINITELY KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. IN MY EXPERIENCE, ONCE A VARIANCE IS ACTED UPON, DENIED OR APPROVED, IT STANDS WITH THAT PROPERTY, AND IN THIS INSTANCE, THAT ACTION HAS OCCURRED, AND OF COURSE, WE ARE ASSESSING THE SAFETY VALVE ELEMENTS THAT WERE ADDRESSED. THEY TOOK, AND WE PROMPTED AND EDUCATED AND EXPLAINED WHERE THE DEFICIENCIES WERE. SO, AGAIN, THE EXPANSION CONTINUED AND THE SETBACK CONTINUED, AS WELL AS THE DISCUSSION AMAZING MATERIALS THAT COULD HELP.

AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THERE WERE A NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS. SO, ONE SUCH VIOLATION, THE ZONING SETBACK, WHICH THE VARIANCE WAS NOT APPROVED. ON TOP OF THAT, WE DID ALLOW, WE SAID, LET'S TRY TO RE-HEAR IT, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, WHICH WE CHOSE NOT TO RE-HEAR IT BECAUSE OF THE HISTORICAL IMPLICATIONS, QUITE QUICKLY, ASSOCIATED WITH THE

CONSTRUCTION OF THIS EXCESS ÚREBUILDING. >> SO, HEARING WHAT DANIEL JUST SAID, POTENTIALLY IS AN AVENUE TO REAPPLY FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. I WOULD APPRECIATE IT SOME CONVERSATION WOULD HAPPEN TO SEE IF THAT'S A POSSIBILITY.

>> I COULD APPROACH AND VISIT THE LEGAL. I'M NOT PRIVY TO THAT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WILL

HAVE TO APPROACH IT LATER. >> I WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE STATUTE.

THERE ISN'T A TOTAL --

>> JUST UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO DO THIS? THAT WOULD BE ONE THING. BUT , GIVEN THAT A

MAJORITY ACTUALLY -- >> RIGHT. AND I HEAR YOU, BECAUSE THE VARIANCE REQUESTED ITSELF WAS AS SUCH, BUT HOWEVER, THERE WAS UNANIMOUS SUPER MAJORITY DO NOT RE-HEAR

IT. >> SO, I THINK WE ARE BEATING A DEAD HORSE HERE. ANYBODY

WANT TO SUPPORT DEBBIE'S PROPOSAL? OKAY. >> COUNCILMEMBER?

>> DEBBIE'S PROPOSAL? OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT. I THINK YOU HAVE, BASICALLY, THE CONSENSUS NOT TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE. NOT TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE. THAT'S YOUR

[3E. Discuss the establishment of the Development Review Ad-Hoc Committee (DRC). (20 Minutes)]

CONSENSUS? >> NOT CHANGE. >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 3E, DISCUSS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AD HOC COMMITTEE, DRC. AND IF YOU

[01:35:01]

-- DO YOU MIND RUNNING AND TELLING THEM? >> YES.

>> ANY CONSENT TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. MAYBE PAUSE?

>> THAT PART IN THE PACKET? >> YES. >> OKAY.

>> HEAR THAT THIS IS A DIFFICULT CITY TO WORK WITH , ROWLETT. I HAVE HAD SEVERAL COME UP TO ME AND SAY, THEY WOULD HAVE MOVED THROUGH THE PROCESS, HOWEVER , WE REQUIRE THINGS UP FRONT THAT PERMITTED THEM FROM MOVING FORWARD, BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON SITE PLANS. AND SO FORTH , WITHOUT HAVING ANY KIND OF INDICATION AS TO THE APPETITE, IN TERMS OF , BASICALLY, IS THIS GOING TO FAIL? IN MY WASTING MY TIME AND MONEY HERE? SO, AS A PRACTICE, THIS COUNSEL HAS CHOSEN TO -- FOR GOOD REASON -- NOT MEET WITH DEVELOPERS INDIVIDUALLY DUE TO THE PERCEPTION. AND SO, IN TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, IT LEAVES THIS DARK HOLE WE DON'T KNOW. AND SO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO BUSINESS IN ROWLETT. WE HAVE MISSED OUT ON A COUPLE OF REALLY GOOD OPPORTUNITIES BECAUSE OF THAT.

SO, THIS IDEA OF -- WAS -- TRYING TO FILL THAT GAP IN A MORE FORMAL WAY, INSTEAD OF HAVING, YOU KNOW, ONE NUMBER OF COUNSEL MEETING WITH A DEVELOPER WANTING TO BRING IT COMMERCIAL OR MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL PROJECT TO THE CITY. IT WOULD BE THIS REVIEW, AD HOC COMMITTEE CONSIST OF THREE MEMBERS OF COUNSEL AND A PNC MEMBER AND STAFF. THIS WOULD BE -- AN ADVANCE OF AN APPLICATION BEING FILED BY THE DEVELOPER FOR THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL OR MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL PROJECT. THIS WOULD NOT BE FOR RESIDENTIAL OR ANY OTHER USE, OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL, MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL. WE WOULD MEET AND DISCUSS THE PROJECT , IN TERMS OF ITS PRELIMINARY STATE, AND DETERMINE IF THERE IS ANY INTEREST FOR THIS PERSON FOR IT, OR IF THERE'S ANY NEEDS, IN TERMS OF CHANGING THE LAYOUT OF A PROJECT DUE TO THE PUBLIC NEED OR PUBLIC ISSUE . WE HAD ONE COMMITTEE , OR ONE MEETING, THE KIND OF SERVE AS A HOW WOULD THIS WORK , TO SEE HOW IT WOULD WORK, AND IT WENT VERY, VERY WELL. IT WORKED AS INTENDED . EVERYBODY LEFT WITH A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THE PARTICULAR PROJECT , YOU KNOW, AND THAT GOING INTO IT WAS DEFINITELY NOT GOING TO WORK , AND LEFT IT WITH THERE ARE THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE TO MAKE THIS WORK . NONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THIS MEETING ARE ANY KIND OF GUARANTEE. IT IS NOT AN OBLIGATION OF THE DEVELOPER TO MEET WITH THIS COMMITTEE. IT'S ONLY BY REQUEST. IF THEY WISH TO MEET WITH MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THIS REALLY IS JUST ALSO TO PROTECT US, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ALSO TO ALLOW US TO BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THESE INTERESTED PARTIES , AND THE MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITIES , THIS WILL HELP TO KIND OF GET US AWAY FROM BEING THE HARD-TO-WORK WITH IDEA THAT'S OUT THERE . ALSO, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WILL WORK UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT A NEW ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE IS DEVELOPED IN HERE TOO. SO, THIS DOCUMENT WAS PUT TOGETHER THROUGH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. THIS EXPLAINS THE PURPOSE OF THESE AD HOC COMMITTEE, AND WHAT IT WILL AND WON'T DO . THIS DOCUMENT HAS TO BE SIGNED BY THE PARTIES WHO WISH TO MEET WITH THE COUNCIL TO PROTECT THE CITY , AND THOSE INVOLVED WITH THE DISCUSSION OF THE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION OF A PROPOSED PROJECT. THE MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE WOULD BE

[01:40:10]

BRIAN GALLO-HARDY AND MYSELF. THEN, A PNC MEMBER, I BELIEVE, JOHN COTE, LIBBY TUCKER, CHARLES MASERATI WITH CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT. I'M TRYING TO THINK IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE

THAT I MISSING HERE. LET ME SEE. >> I THINK YOU COVERED IT.

>> I THINK SO. SO, WANTED TO BRING THIS TO COUNSEL TO HEAR IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS RELATED TO THIS. SORT OF GET TO YOUR'S BLESSING WITH REGARDS TO THIS.

>> SO, I PUT TOGETHER THIS AS AN AD HOC, JUST TO HAVE ONE MEETING TO DETERMINE IF THIS WAS SOMETHING WORTH CONTINUING, AND THEN AS SUCH, BECAUSE IT WAS DETERMINED AS SUCCESSFUL, BROUGHT INTO THIS GROUP FOR Y'ALL'S COMMENTS AND THOUGHTS. AS WHETHER WE CAN MOVE FORWARD

WITH THIS OR NOT. >> IS THERE ANY PRECEDENCE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN A

COMPARABLE SETTING? >> NO. ACTUALLY, SORRY. I TAKE THAT BACK. THIS ONE IN DALLAS, BUT THEY HAD TO PAY SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS TO MEET WITH THE BOARD. IT IS KIND OF LIKE A

PLAN A MEMBER. >> SO, FROM THAT RESPECT, THERE'S -- THIS WOULD NOT RUN AFOUL OF ANY DUE PROCESS FOR A DEVELOPER-BUILDER-PROPERTY OWNER MIGHT HAVE TO DEVELOP

THE LAND? >> THE CONCEPT BEHIND IT IS IT IS PURELY VOLUNTARY. PURELY FOR DEVELOPERS. IT IS REALLY THERE TO SUPPORT THE CITY OF ROWLETT FOR DEVELOPERS. ANOTHER DEVELOPER HAS ANY APPLICATION TO BUILD FOR THE COMMITTEE? THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SANCTION OR PENALTIES IF THEY FAIL TO DO THAT . IT IS PURELY THEY GET THE FIRST CHANCE TO SCREEN THEIR APPLICATION . SOME PEOPLE ON THE COUNCIL, SOME PEOPLE ON STAFF. YOU KNOW, THE STATEMENT WE HAVE, CLEARLY INDICATING THAT THEY CAN'T FORM ANY INVESTMENT WITH EXPEDITIONS, AND CAN'T RELY ON THE COMMITTEE'S DECISION .SO, THE COMMITTEE SAYS, NO, DON'T DO THIS, OR THIS WILL NEVER PASS, THEN THEY'VE GOT TO SPEND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS TO DEVELOP THEIR APPLICATIONS, GO THROUGH A PROCESS, REVIEW IT, AND THE APPROVALS . IF THE COMMITTEE SAYS, THIS IS GREAT, THIS IS WONDERFUL, OKAY. IF THE DEVELOPER'S APPLICATION SUBSEQUENTLY IS DENIED , THEY ROLL THE DICE. THAT'S THEIR CHOICE.

>> SO, THERE MAY NOT BE LEGAL REASONS , BUT ONE THING ABOUT THE PERCEPTION -- SO -- IF YOU HAVE THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND STAFF THAT MEET WITH THIS CODE , AND THEY SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE THINK THIS IS A GREAT PROJECT, SPEND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO GET THE PERMITS READY, GO THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS, THEN COUNCIL VOTES NO, YOU KNOW, HOW DOES THAT LOOK? THEN, THE OTHER WAY IS, YOU KNOW, THE SUBCOMMITTEE SAYS, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T THINK THAT'S GONNA FLY HERE, AND NOW, THEY MAY WALK AWAY TAKING THAT THERE'S NO WAY, AND THE OTHER FOUR COUNCILMEMBERS MAY HAVE BEEN OKAY WITH IT. I THINK THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOME TRANSPARENCY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE SAYING . BUT THAT COULD BE A PERCEPTION THAT HAS TO BE DEALT WITH. IF IT'S DEALT WITH, EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PAGE, THAT'S FINE. BUT , SEE, THAT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN A LOT OF CITIES, WHERE YOU DO HAVE TO WORK WITH INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS , DEVELOPERS, FOR THE SAME PURPOSE. IT ALREADY OCCURS. WE'VE BEEN PRETTY WELL-FIRST AND, IN OUR COUNCIL , AS OUR MEMBERS HAVE NOT DONE THAT, WHOLESALE, SINCE DAVID HAS BEEN CITY ATTORNEY. BUT A LOT OF CITIES, IT'S VERY, VERY

COMMON. >> I HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY A LOT OF DEVELOPERS. DEAN AND I ALWAYS SAID, NO. I DON'T WANT TO MEET ONE-ON-ONE WITH THE DEVELOPER AND HAVE IT TURN INTO A HE SAID, SHE SAID KIND OF THING. I DON'T WANT THE PERCEPTION THERE MIGHT BE CORRUPTION GOING ON, THAT KIND OF THING, BRIBERY. THAT'S WHY I LIKE THIS. BUT I THINK IT WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE REALLY CLEAR, YOU KNOW, AND DAVID MENTIONED THE COMMITTEE'S DECISION. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD EVEN MAKE A DECISION, JUST GIVE OUR PERSONAL GUIDELINES.

>> WELL, THIS WAS AN IDEA ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY LIBBY, BECAUSE SHE WAS SEEN, IN HER FIELD, A LOT OF INTEREST RUN AWAY, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT MAKING OURSELVES AVAILABLE TO MEET

[01:45:06]

WITH THESE INDIVIDUALS, AND THEY DON'T WANT TO SPEND $100,000 ON SITE PLANS AND

STUDY TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS JUST TO BE TOLD -- >>

>> CORRECT, BUT THEY HAVE SOME IDEA. >> YOU LOOK AT A CITY 'S -- IN WHICH WE ARE COMPETING -- OKAY? OTHER CITIES WILL HAVE CHAMPIONS. WHETHER IT'S THE MAYOR , COUNCIL MEMBERS, YOU KNOW, CHAMPION PROJECTS, BIG ECONOMIC OF ELEMENTS, LOTS OF DOLLARS TO THROW AT POTENTIAL PROJECTS TO COME IN. IF YOU'RE A DEVELOPER, LOOKING TO GO INTO IT, WANT TO MAKE SURE IT IS GOING TO FIT WITH WHAT THE DIVISION IS FOR THE LEADERSHIP AT THAT TIME, YOU KNOW, SINCE WE'RE NOT A DISTRICT-BASED, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL, NEVER HAVE BEEN , I THINK IT'S REALLY A GREAT IDEA. I THINK IT'S A WAY FOR A GROUP TO BE ABLE TO GET -- HEY, DOES THIS MAKE SENSE OF WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR? YOU LOOK AT THE BIGGEST TRACT OF LAND, VERY NEBULOUS, IN TERMS OF WHAT THE FUTURE LAND-USE PLAN IS. IT WAS KEPT THAT WAY ON PURPOSE. SO, IF YOU'RE DEVELOPER, THINKING, I WANT TO INVEST A BUNCH OF MONEY OVER HERE, WHY WOULD I GO IN THERE, DO ALL THAT WORK IF IT DOESN'T MEET WITH THE VISION? SO, I THINK IT'S REALLY GOOD. ONE THING I WOULD PUSH BACK ON HIS I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE THE STANDING FROM COUNCILMEMBERS THAT ARE ON THAT BOARD. I THINK YOU HAVE, IF YOU HAVE A DEVELOPER THAT COMES FORWARD , THEY GO THROUGH THE AMERICAN THE MAYOR WOULD BRING IT FORWARD THROUGH AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, BRING IT REALLY TOOK COUNCIL AND SAY, OKAY, WHO WANTS TO BE A PART OF THIS? IT MIGHT BE A COMMERCIAL, REAL ESTATE, MIGHT BE SOMETHING WHICH HAS DIFFERENT EXPERTISE, BASED ON THE COUNCIL WHO IS SEATED AT THAT TIME. HAVING SET COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THERE, I WOULD SAY, NOT BEYOND THAT, BUT I DO THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA, IN TERMS OF IF THAT'S AN ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO GIVE THE DEVELOPER A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORT, IN TERMS OF WHAT THE VISION IS, WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO BRING ON, TO DO THAT FIRST, INITIAL INVESTMENT FOR THE CITY, AND THEN THEY ALSO HAVE THEIR CHAMPION, BECAUSE NOW, OKAY, WE KNOW IT'S COMING. THERE'S STAFF THAT'S THERE TOO. HE KNOWS IT'S THERE TOO. IT'S A PROJECT THAT NOW BECOMES CHAMPIONED THROUGH. AND SO, PEOPLE AREN'T PAYING ATTENTION TO IT, WHETHER IS GOING THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS OR WHATEVER, AND SOMETIMES, THAT CAN HELP CLEAR OTHER HURDLES ALONG THE WAY. SO, THAT'S KIND OF MY TAKE ON IT. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU GO THROUGH DIFFERENT WAYS TO FIGURE OUT WHICH COUNCILMEMBER --

>> IN PRINCIPLE, I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. I DON'T OBJECT TO THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. WHAT I WOULD FOR IS FOR THIS TO COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL, HAVE DISCUSSION IF WE HAVE IT FOR THE FIRST MEETING AND ASSIGNED COUNCIL NUMBERS. I THINK WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN MUCH BETTER UNDERSTANDING FOR THE COUNCIL. SEEMS LIKE, OKAY, GO HAVE DONE

THIS? PROVE IT . >> IS NOT THE CASE, BECAUSE WE'RE HERE.

>> I KNOW. YOU HAVE ALREADY HAD TO MAKE IT. >> YES, WE DID. THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY TO SEE IF THIS WAS EVEN WORTH IT TO COUNCIL, AND IT IS.

>> CAN DAVE SPEAK TO THAT? >> WELL -- >> I MEAN -- I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, MYSELF, FOR SIX YEARS, I TELL HIM, NO. AND I AGREE THAT, BECAUSE I'M THERE, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THIS SHOULD MOVE FORWARD FIRST. THEN, LIKE I SAID, MAKE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION , UNLIKE THE REST OF Y'ALL, LET US KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, BECAUSE WHAT YOU DID, JUST WENT DOWN AND SAID, YOU OUGHT TO KNOW, I DON'T LIKE THAT. I REALLY DON'T. I THINK EVERY COUNCILMEMBER SELECTED , THE CITIZENS SHOULD HAVE A DECISION COUNCIL, AMENDING A DECISION TO MEET ONCE. SO, HOW DO WE FILL IN THE GAP THAT WE HAVE? IN TERMS OF , YOU KNOW, THESE DEVELOPERS WANT AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE THE BINDS ARE AT, AND IF THERE'S ANY INTEREST, OR IF IT'S BEEN ALL RIGHT SO I DON'T HAVE TO SPEND $100,000 AND THROW MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN. YOU HAD A QUESTION?

>> NO. YOU KNOW, IT WAS RUN BY DAVID FIRST. >> YET.

>> AND, AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE NO APPOINTMENTS. THERE'S NOTHING BUT A

RECOMMENDATION. >> YES , THERE IS. >> THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION TO

[01:50:05]

MAKE THOSE A LOT. >> COUNCIL IS DISCUSSING IT. THIS ISN'T EVEN -- THAT'S WHY WE ARE INVOLVED IN THIS. THIS ISN'T EVEN A FORMAL -- EVEN BY ORDINANCE -- WOULDN'T BE FORMAL. THIS IS AN AD HOC .AN AD HOC CAN BE CREATED AT ANY POINT IN TIME. YOU CAN CREATE AN AD HOC. YOU CAN CREATE AN AD HOC. I CAN CREATE AN AD HOC I'M BRINGING IT TO COUNCIL TO GET YOUR'S FULL ADVICE. I CAN CREATE AN AD HOC WHEN I PLEASE. YOU CAN CREATE AN AD HOC WHEN YOU PLEASE. DON'T TELL ME HOW TO DO MY JOB, AND I WILL TELL YOU HOW TO DO YOURS.

SO, THE SUGGESTION , MATT, AND YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT . YOU KIND OF CAPTURED THE PURPOSE OF WHAT I RECOMMENDED. YOU CAPTURED IT VERY WELL, WHICH IS WE HAVE A NEED HERE, AND HOW TO FILL THAT NEED IS A CHALLENGING PART . AND SO, YOUR SUGGESTION WAS TO --

>> DIDN'T WE GO THROUGH THE MAYOR? AND IF THERE'S A REQUEST, YOU CAN BRING IT TO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND THEN YOU CAN PICK , YOU KNOW, HAVE A CONVERSATION, EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND THEN TWO PEOPLE CAN BE THERE ON THE AD HOC. OR, YOU CAN DO IT THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. THEN, LIKE WE PROBABLY

HAVE. >> YEAH. >> IT WOULD BE ACTUALLY

PROBLEMATIC. >> YEAH. >> BUT I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD DO A STANDING COMMITTEE. YOU CAN HAVE STANDING COMMITTEE WITH PEOPLE MEETING WITH DEVELOPERS ON THE PROPERTY. BECAUSE WORD WILL GET OUT, AND DEVELOPERS WILL BE LIKE, HERE'S HOW I GET TO TALK TO THE CITY. SO, PEOPLE MAY ROTATE THE DEAL , WHERE EACH TIME, THERE'S TWO NEW PEOPLE, AND IT'S ALWAYS THE MAYOR, OR IT GOES OFF ON LAURA, AND THE FIRST TWO GO BACK IN. I DON'T CARE HOW THEY DO. YOU ARE RIGHT. EXECUTIVE SESSION IS PROBABLY THAT. BUT THE WHOLE POINT, IT -- THE MAYOR SHOULD ALWAYS BE THERE, AND IT SHOULD BE A ROTATION OF COUNCILMEMBERS, NOT THE SAME TWO COUNCILMEMBERS THOUGH, ANYTIME OR PERIOD OF TIME.

>> YEAH. I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THAT. THAT'S NOT A BAD IDEA. I WOULDN'T MIND THAT IDEA AT ALL.

ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? >> NONE. >> I'M WONDERING HOW HE WOULD PLACE AN ORDER WITH THIS? WHAT IS THERE ROLE IN FOSTERING BUSINESSES THAT COME TO TOWN?

>> SO, EDAB WOULD COME INTO PLAY IN TERMS OF ANY INCENTIVE REQUESTS COMING FORWARD. THIS IS MORE -- THESE ARE FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS, MIXED-USED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS WHO KNOW THEY WILL HAVE TO SEE VARIOUS ZONING CHANGES, OR ANYTHING OF SUCH THAT WOULD REQUIRE COUNCIL INTO ACTION, WHICH IS WHY THE SUGGESTION WAS TO HAVE A FEW MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND IT CANNOT DEVELOP MEANT TEAM. THAT WOULD BE WELL AFTER THE APPLICATION IS ALREADY SUBMITTED THAT'S WHERE WE TAKE OUR HANDS OFF OF IT, LET STAFF

DO THEIR JOB >> ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THESE CHANGES. THE THING ABOUT DEVELOP MEANT, IT WILL COME IN , THE AGENCY, GET A ZONING EXCHANGE FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY.

THEY HAD TO PUT A LOT OF MONEY TO EVEN GET TO THE POINT OF REZONING THE REQUEST CHANGE, WHEN THEY COULD HAVE SAID, COULD HAVE VERY QUICKLY LEARNED, WE DON'T WANT THE FAMILY THERE. THEY COULD BE LIKE, ALL RIGHT. ONTO THE NEXT PROJECT, AS OPPOSED TO PLAYING THAT IN. A LOT OF TIMES, THEY CAN'T EVEN GET TO THAT END, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE SITUATION

THEY MAY HAVE. >> SO, I THINK ABOUT COMMERCIAL, MIXED-USE, WHICH IS WHT THIS IS FOR, AND I'M WONDERING -- THIS IS LESS ABOUT THE TYPE OF DEVELOP IT , CHARACTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT, MORE ABOUT THE POLICY, GETTING IT . RIGHT? SO, IT'S NOT SO MUCH, WE DON'T WANT YOUR TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT HERE. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY --

>> NO. IF YOU HAVE AN INDUSTRIAL USER THAT WANTS TO PUT IT IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEY WANT TO GET AN IDEA FROM COUNCIL AS TO WHERE WE'RE AT, AND THEN WE SAY, THAT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO WORK OUT WELL IN YOUR FAVOR, WITH THE PUBLIC, PROBABLY NOT WORTH THE MONEY AND TIME, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THIS IS DOING.

>> YEAH. >> AND THE ALTERNATING MEMBERS OF COUNCIL , IF YOU ARE WANTING THE MAYOR TO STAND THERE THE WHOLE TIME, AND THEN TWO ARE ALTERNATING, AND EACH TIME WE HAVE MEETINGS WITH TWO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, WE CAN DO THAT BY PLACE NUMBER.

SO, ONE AND TWO PLACES, ONE AND TWO. THEN, THREE AND FOUR, THEN FIVE AND SIX.

>> ANY BENEFIT TO HAVING A REPRESENTED WORKING FOR THE CONGRESS?

>> AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE MORE IF THEY'RE IN THE INCENTIVE PART THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS TRYING

TO DO. >> YEAH THING, THEY ALREADY HAVE ACCESS TO WHO USUALLY GLADLY MEETS WITH THEM, WHEREAS, YOU KNOW, WE JUST HAD THIS STANDING PRACTICE OF DOING THAT HERE. THE OTHER THING IS, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS SPECIFIC ZONING REQUIREMENTS, I THINK YOU CAN LOOK AT JEFF FOR A SPECIFIC ACTION LIKE THAT. THEY'RE ALREADY GOING TO BE

[01:55:06]

APPROACHING STAFF, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE PROCESS, HOW DOES THIS WORK. I THINK WHAT THE MAYOR IS REALLY TALKING ABOUT, PEOPLE JUST WANT A GUT FEEL FOR HOW THAT PROJECT IS GOING TO BE VIEWED BY THE COUNCIL, AND SEVERAL TIMES, AT LEAST IN MY TIME AS EDITOR, WE HAVE ACTUALLY HAD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE HAVE RESPONDED TO THAT. PREDICTABLY, WITH THE BIG PROJECTS. YOU KNOW, BUT THIS COULD BE THE MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECTS, WHERE IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE BEFORE SOMEBODY SPENDS A LOT OF MONEY.

>> AND THE FACT IS , I MEAN, I HAVE BEEN TOLD -- THEY REACH OUT TO ME ALL THE TIME -- AND I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE MEETING WITH THESE PEOPLE ONE-ON-ONE. I JUST DON'T. I KNOW NONE OF US DO. BUT THIS WOULD MAKE ME, AND I'M SURE YOU'LL FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE -- BUT THIS IS MORE KIND OF A FORMAL WAY OF DOING THINGS. STAFF IS THERE. THIS HAS BEEN VETTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. THEY HAVE TO HAVE SIGNED OFF ON THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT . YOU KNOW, SAYING THAT THEY KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS NOT A FORMAL GUIDANCE OR ADVICE , AND THAT IF IT FAILS, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. THAT'S THEIR PROBLEM. IT'S JUST A MORE PROTECTED, SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR US TO FILL THIS NEED TO LET THESE DEVELOPERS WHO WANT TO BRING IN COMMERCIAL JOBS TO THE CITY, TO KNOW WHETHER THERE IS, REALLY, IF IT'S WORTH MOVING FORWARD AND SPENDING $100,000. THERE'S BEEN A COUPLE OF SMALL BUSINESSES THAT WANT TO COME IN, BUT THEY JUST WILL NOT SPEND THIS MUCH MONEY TO COME INTO ROWLETT TO NOT KNOW WHAT -- IF IT'S GONNA PASS OR NOT. THEY JUST WANT. SO, WE ARE NOT CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT OF WE'RE OPEN TO BUSINESS. THIS HELPS SOLVE THAT PROBLEM. SO, I THINK WHAT I'VE HEARD IS THAT, THE INTEREST IS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT, BUT INSTEAD OF HAVING THREE STANDING, THERE'S TWO ALTERNATING COUNCILMEMBERS , PLACE AND TIME. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT?

>> NO OBJECTION AT ALL. COMMISSIONER CHARLES, ON BOARD?

>> YES. >> NOT AN INITIATIVE BURDEN FOR STAFF?

>> WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD BY THEM, THEY ACTUALLY REALLY APPRECIATE THIS, AND HOPE TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THEIR MINDS ARE AT AS WELL, BECAUSE THEY'RE ALSO GOING OUT ON A LIMB, TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS. YOU KNOW? SO, THIS KIND OF --

>> OKAY. >> HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. >> SORRY. RIGHT. IT'S EASY TO

FORGET YOU ARE HERE. >> YES. THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S OKAY. I WAS TOLD, KEEP QUIET.

SO, TWO THOUGHTS. FIRST, LET ME SAY AGAIN, I HAVE NO ISSUE IN THE ROTATING BASIS. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD APPROACH. I ALSO WOULD HAVE TO WONDER IF THE CHALLENGE WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE IS A DIRECT RESULT OF BEING WILLING TO SPEAK WITH PEOPLE INDIVIDUALLY. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE . I KNOW THAT'S BEEN OUR ATTORNEY'S ADVICE. IT'S GOOD ADVICE. BECAUSE THERE'S A DANGER OF THE FLOW. IN THIS STATE, IT REQUIRES ONE ALREADY TO DO THAT IN COURT.

SO, THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL RISK FOR INDIVIDUAL CONVERSATIONS, BUT I HAVE TO WONDER , IF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE IS THE PROBLEM WE HAVE, IN FACT, CREATED?

>> I THINK IT IS. IT'S NOT REALLY A PROBLEM. I THINK IT'S JUST BEST-PRACTICE, BUT THIS IS HOW YOU ADDRESS NOT MEETING INDIVIDUALLY, BUT STILL PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE DEVELOPING COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S EVEN AMPLE TIME TO MOVE FORWARD

THROUGH THE PROCESS. >> YEAH. I THINK IT'S NECESSARY, ESPECIALLY WITH THESE VERY, VERY LARGE DEVELOPERS , LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE ON COUNCIL, APPROACHING MULTIPLE TIMES , VARIOUS PEOPLE WHO HAVE PROBABLY HAD CONTINGENT CONTRACTS TO PURCHASE LAND , DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEPARTMENT. I HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THOSE, BUT I HAVE HAD TO THINK HARD, AT THIS POINT, ABOUT WHETHER THAT IS APPROPRIATE. I REACHED THE CONCLUSION TONIGHT, I THINK THIS PROVES THAT, WHEN YOU ARE FORWARD, MIGHT BE A DECIDING

FACTOR , AN INDIVIDUAL CONVERSATION NEEDED AROUND IT. >> SAFETY IN NUMBERS.

>> EXACTLY .YEAH. >> OKAY. BUT YOU STILL RUN THE RISK OF QUID PRO QUO.

>> RIGHT. >> YOUR RISK IS SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU

HAVE STAFF IN THE ROOM. >> VOLUNTARY NEEDS. >> ALL RIGHT. ARE WE GOOD ON

[02:00:01]

THIS? IT IS 7:30. WE ARE GOING TO START LATE INTO THE REGULAR SESSION AT 7:40.

>> DO YOU WANT TO TELL THEM? >> 7:45, BACK IN THERE. PULLING TWO ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. THAT IS ITEM 7B, REGARDING THE CLEAN ENERGY DOCUMENTS, AND 7H, RELATED TO LINK STRIVING SERVICES. ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO PULL AN ITEM FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? ALL RIGHT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

1. CALL TO ORDER

Apr 18, 2023 City Council Work Session

1. CALL TO ORDER

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item