Jul 23, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting

ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS.

YOU MAY BE SEATED.

UH, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM ESTABLISHED.

UH, TO MY RIGHT WE HAVE COMMISSIONER BELL, UH, COMMISSIONER CAESAR, VICE CHAIR RAVENNA.

TO MY LEFT, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER BROOKS AND COMMISSIONER BERRY AND MYSELF, CHAIR THEO PUGH.

UH, WE AGAIN, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.

UH, ALL COMMERS ARE PRESENT.

UH, THE FIRST ITEM

[1. Approval of Minutes]

OF AGENDA IS ITEM D ONE A, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING ZONING, REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 25TH, 2024.

COMMISSIONERS HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE MINUTES.

ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR MODIFICATIONS YOU'D LIKE TO SUGGEST AT THIS TIME? MR. RAVENNA, MR. CHAIR DON'T HAVE ANY, BUT I'D JUST LIKE TO COMMEND STAFF ON THE MINUTES.

THEY'RE VERY WELL DONE.

THA THANK YOU, MR. LL IT'S NOT OFTEN THAT PEOPLE GET APPLAUSE FOR THE MINUTES, SO , YOU DID, DID A GREAT JOB.

ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER, UM, ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS, MODIFICATIONS? THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO, UH, JUST THROW OUT THERE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NECESSARY, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE NEEDED TO BE A NOTATION THAT PRIOR TO US GETTING INTO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, WE ACTUALLY MOVED THE AGENDA AROUND AND ACTUALLY DID CITIZEN APPEARANCES FIRST.

SO I WOULD JUST MAKE THAT ONE, UM, RECOMMENDATION THAT WE MAKE A NOTATION, UH, THAT WE DID CITIZEN APPEARANCES PRIOR TO GETTING INTO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF CITIZENS WE HAVE WHO WANT TO SPEAK ON THAT PARTICULAR EVENING.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE PERTAINING TO THESE MINUTES? OKAY.

HEARING IS SAID, NONE.

IS THERE A MOTION? SO MOVED.

GET INTO OUR REGULAR AGENDA ITEM E ONE.

WHO MOVED? UH, OKAY.

SO MR. BELL MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AS MODIFIED MS. CAESAR HAS SECONDED DEMOTION.

ANY UNREADINESS HEARING IS SEEING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR? PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY AYE.

AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED.

DO THE SAME AND SAY NAY.

MOTION CARRIES.

SIX COMMISSIONERS.

WE WILL NOW

[1. Continue discussion (from the May 28, 2024 and June 25, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission meetings) and consider initiating the amendment of the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 7 Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Subsection 7.6 Restoration of Nonconforming Structures.]

I SEE MR. BREWER'S ALREADY PREPARED.

I'LL READ IT OFF AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO HIM.

IT SAYS, CONTINUE DISCUSSION FROM THE MAY 28TH, 2024 AND JUNE 25TH, 2024, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETINGS, AND CONSIDER INITIATING THE AMENDMENT OF THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE.

SECTION SEVEN, NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES SUBSECTION SEVEN DASH 7.6, RESTORATION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES.

MR. BUR, GOOD EVENING TO YOU, SIR.

AND MAY WE HAVE OUR STAFFER BOARD PLEASE? ALRIGHT, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

THIS IS A CONTINUATION MEETING FROM YOUR MAY 28TH AND JUNE 25TH MEETING.

THE FIRST PART OF IT IS JUST A REMINDER, PARTICULARLY THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE OR THOSE WHO MAY BE, UH, LOOKING ONLINE, UH, DURING THE CONSIDERATION OF THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTIES AND ASSOCIATION AND ASSOCIATION WITH THE HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE, UH, AREA, IT WAS EXPRESSED BY, UH, MULTIPLE RESIDENTS WHO CAME TO THE PODIUM ABOUT THAT CONCERN.

IF UNDER A CATASTROPHIC EVENT OF SOME SORT TO THEIR HOME, WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO REBUILD? UH, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT WITH THE NEW PROPOSED ZONING REGULATIONS OF THE HAMPTON CODE, THAT THERE WILL BE A FEW PROPERTIES THAT WILL BE ESTABLISHED, CREATED FROM BECOMING NON-CONFORMING TO NON-CONFORMING, CONFORMING TO NON-CONFORMING EXCUSE FOR THAT.

AND SO AFTER THAT SESSION, STAFF HAD IDENTIFIED, UH, PROBABLY ABOUT THREE AREAS, OUR ZONING REGULATIONS WE WOULD LIKE TO BRING BACK TO YOU TO START OUR DISCUSSIONS.

UM, ONE WAS ON NON-CONFORMING.

THE OTHER WAS, UH, ADUS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.

AND THERE WAS ONE MORE, I CAN'T REMEMBER RIGHT NOW, BUT WE BROUGHT BACK TO YOU THAT ITEM.

UH, WE ARE HERE TODAY WITH, UH, SOME ADDITIONAL RESEARCH THAT YOU HAD ASKED US TO DO.

UM, I, I BELIEVE CALEB WILL HAVE, UH, COMMENTS TO MAKE AS FAR AS, UH, FROM HIS SIDE, FROM THE LEGAL SIDE.

WE REQUESTED HIM TO, UH, MAKE COMMENTS ALSO.

BUT IN SHORT, THE CITY'S CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 7.6, DOES ESTABLISH THAT IF A STRUCTURE OCCUPIED BY NON-CONFORMING USE IS DESTROYED BY FIRE, THE ELEMENTS OR OTHER CAUSE, IT MAY NOT BE REBUILT EXCEPT TO CONFORM TO THE DIVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE.

IN THE CASE OF PARTIAL DESTRUCTION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE STRUCTURE, NOT EXCEEDING 60% OF ITS TOTAL APPRAISAL VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DALLAS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECONSTRUCTION WILL

[00:05:01]

BE PERMITTED.

BUT THE EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE OR FUNCTION OF THE NON-CONFORMING USE, UH, CANNOT BE EXPLAINED.

WE SHARED WITH YOU AT, DURING YOUR LAST MEETINGS OUR RESEARCH, WE LOOKED INTO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH IS A STATE STATUTE, UH, THAT CONTAINS THE STATE STATUTE FOR ZONING REGULATIONS TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY LANGUAGE THAT WAS PRINTED IN THE STATE STATUTE THAT ACTUALLY ESTABLISHED A 60%.

IN OUR READING, WE FOUND OUT THERE WAS NONE.

SO WHAT WE DID, WE REACHED OUT TO SEVERAL CITIES TO SEE WHAT THEIR REGULATIONS WERE ESTABLISHED.

AND AS YOU SEE FROM THIS CHART, THIS WAS THE ANALYSIS, UH, MAY BE HARD TO READ, BUT AT THE BOTTOM, THERE ARE THREE ADDITIONAL CITIES THAT WERE CONTACTED.

UH, THIS IS AN UPDATE THAT FROM WHAT WAS IN YOUR AGENDA PACKAGE, UM, IN YOUR AGENDA PACKAGE WAS THE SAME, UM, SPREADSHEET THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU DURING YOUR, YOUR LAST MEETING.

BUT THIS ONE IS THE GREEN ONE.

UM, THE FRONT SHEET, UH, THAT I HAVE JUST PUT ON YOUR DAES IS THIS, THESE SHEETS RIGHT HERE, THE GREEN WILL GIVE THOSE ADDITIONAL.

UM, WE'RE NOT GONNA NECESSARILY, UNLESS YOU DESIRE STAFF WAS NOT PLANNING ON GOING IN AND DIGESTING ALL THIS MATERIAL.

IT'S REALLY JUST THE TOP SUMMARY SHEET THAT YOU TASKED US TO DO SOME EXTRA RESEARCH.

AS WE COMMUNICATED TO YOU LAST TIME, UH, WITH THE CITY DOING 60, WE FOUND A COUPLE OTHER SIX THAT A COUPLE OTHER CITIES THAT ALSO DO 60%.

WE FOUND A COUPLE OF THAT DID 50%.

AND WE ALSO FOUND THE CITY, UH, A COUPLE OF CITIES, WHICH WAS BUSCH SPRINGS AND DUNCANVILLE, THAT ESTABLISHED THAT IT DID NOT ESTABLISH ANY PERCENTAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS NONCONFORMING, UH, QUESTION OF DAMAGE.

BUT IT DID ESTABLISH THAT RECONSTRUCTION COULD COMMENCE WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THAT DATE OF, UH, DESTRUCTION OF THAT PROPERTY, PARTIAL DESTRUCTION OF THAT PROPERTY.

IT WAS QUES, UH, COMMISSION QUESTION STAFF.

DID WE KNOW OF WHAT THOSE OTHER CITY'S BASIS WERE, THOSE TWO CITIES THAT ESTABLISHED THOSE NON PERCENTAGE WITH A 12 MONTH? WE INDICATED WE DIDN'T GET ANY ANSWERS ON THAT.

UM, STAFF WE TALKED TO WERE JUST SAYING IT'S WRITTEN IN THEIR REGULATIONS.

WE DID AN ASSUMPTION, UH, GAVE YOU THAT PREDICTION.

MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE IT WAS, THEY FORECAST THE TIME FOR THAT PROPERTY OWNER TO MAKE CONTACT WITH HIS, UH, INSURANCE AGENT, GO THROUGH THE BUILDING PROCESS.

BUT TRULY, WE DON'T KNOW THE REASONS WHY.

BUT ON THIS, UH, UPDATED CHARGE, YOU WILL SEE A VILLA ALSO HAVE 50% MIDLOTHIAN, 50%, GLEN HEIGHTS, 50%, AND DALLAS DOES NOT HAVE THE, UH, PERCENTAGE INCLUDED AT ALL.

I WILL ADD THAT WE ACTUALLY HAD ANOTHER CITY WE LOOKED INTO WHO DOESN'T HAVE ANY PERCENTAGE, AND IT WAS THE CITY OF PFLUGERVILLE.

SO WE HAD LOOKED INTO THEIR RESEARCH AND THERE STRICTLY READS, PERMITTING FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURES MUST THEREAFTER COMMENCED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DAMAGING EVENT.

AS WE SAID, SOME CITY SAYS 12, THEY'RE SAYING SIX MONTHS.

AND THE RECONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE BE COMPLETED AS DETERMINED BY ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE DAMAGING EVENT.

UH, THE TIMEFRAMES HEREIN MAY BE EXTENDED FOR GOOD CAUSE AS PROVEN TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR PROVIDED THERE IS NO ADVERSE EFFECT IN THE COMMUNITY.

SO AGAIN, CITIES ARE ALLOWED TO ESTABLISH THEIR REGULATIONS, PERCENTAGE, NO PERCENTAGE, YEAR TIME, IT IS WHATEVER, UH, IS DECIDED BY THE GOVERNING BODY.

THE NEXT SHEET, AS I SAID, I WON'T GO INTO, IS REPEATING WHAT WE UH, TALKED ABOUT BEFORE AS FAR AS GOING MORE IN PACIFIC ABOUT EACH OF THOSE CITIES REGULATIONS, WHETHER IT'S 50 60 OR NONE.

MOTORIZATION.

UH, I HAD GOTTEN THIS FROM, UM, MY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR.

SHE HAD GOTTEN IT FROM, UM, ONLINE, AND I JUST WANTED TO REPEAT WHAT, UH, WAS, WAS WRITTEN.

UH, THIS IS NEW.

YOU DIDN'T HAVE THIS INTO YOUR, UM, PACKAGES.

AND THEN HOPEFULLY THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UH, CALEB WILL BE ABLE TO TALK MORE ON, BUT SENATE BILL 9 2 9 IN REFERENCE TO A MOTORIZATION, CITIES CAN CURRENTLY CHANGE PROPERTY USE REGULATIONS, WHICH RENDERS A BUSINESS OWNER'S PREVIOUS LEGAL PROPERTY USE AS CONFORMING.

WITHOUT TRIGGERING TAKINGS REPAYMENT REQUIREMENTS.

CITIES THEN CAN USE A PROCESS CALLED AMORTIZATION TO FORCE A PROPERTY OWNER TO CEASE BUSINESS OPERATIONS DEEMED NONCONFORMING, DESPITE BEING PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE BEFORE THE ZONING ORDINANCE ZONING CHANGE.

I DO WANNA STOP HERE AND I WANT TO GET IT CLEAR.

UH, FOR THE RECORD, THE CITY IS NOT LOOKING AT IF THE ZONING CHANGES GO THROUGH TO THEN ORDER OR CAUSE A PROPERTY TO CEASE OPERATIONS.

I WANT TO GET IT CLEAR.

THAT

[00:10:01]

IS NOT, WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED THUS FAR.

THUS FAR, THERE WILL BE A DISCUSSION, BUT THAT HAS NOT BEEN PLACED ON THE TABLE.

THAT IS NOT THE DIRECTION THAT STAFF UNDERSTANDS COUNCIL IS LOOKING AT CONTINUING.

THE CITY NEVER HAS TO PAY THE LANDOWNER DYING FOR TAKING AWAY THE RIGHT TO USE THEIR PROPERTY, AND INSTEAD IMPLEMENTS THE USE OF AN ACCOUNTING MANEUVER TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO QUOTE UNQUOTE, COMPENSATE THEMSELVES.

AMORTIZATION OCCURS ALL OVER THE STATE, FROM LUBBOCK TO DALLAS TO CORPUS CHRISTI.

THE AMORTIZATION PROCESS GOES AGAINST TEXAS LONG TRADITIONAL JOB CREATION AND RESPECT FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

WHEN A CITY HAS A COMPELLING NEED TO DEPRIVE LAND OWNERS OF THE USEFUL ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTIES, IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED AS IN THE CASES OF IMMINENT DOMAIN THAT IT OFFER FINANCIAL COMPENSATION AT FAIR MARKET VALUE.

BUT AGAIN, THE CITY OF DESOTO THROUGH OUR CITY COUNCIL ARE NOT LOOKING TO DO THAT.

MORT HURTS, UH, TEXAS BUSINESSES, UH, FROM SMALL AUTO REPAIR SHOPS, THE FACTORY'S EMPLOYING HUNDREDS OF TEXAS.

AND I'D JUST LIKE TO PASS THE MIC OVER TO CALEB TO SEE IF HE LIKES TO ADD OR SUBTRACT ANYTHING FROM THAT.

I'LL COME UP HERE.

I NEVER GET TO COME UP HERE, SO, SO WHY NOT COME UP HERE AS OPPOSED TO SITTING AT THE DESK.

UH, SO WHAT I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT, I'M ONLY GONNA TALK ABOUT, UM, THE CITY'S ZONING CODE 7.6, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR, TO TALK ABOUT.

THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN ON THE AGENDA AND HOW THAT RELATES TO, UM, SB 9 29.

UM, SO WHAT, 7.6 BEING NON-CONFORMING USE, THAT'S IN THE NON-CONFORMING USE SECTION OF THE ZONING CODE.

THAT SECTION, IN PARTICULAR, AS WE KNOW OF, WE AS WE'VE SEEN DEALS WITH CASUALTY LOSS.

SO IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU BY STAFF.

DO, DO YOU WANNA CHANGE THAT FROM THE 60% THAT IT IS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ON THE SLIDE, BUT WHAT THAT SAYS IS, A STRUCTURE OCCUPIED BY NON-CONFORMING USE IS DESTROYED BY FIRE.

THE ELEMENTS OR OTHER CAUSES, IT MAY NOT BE REBUILT, UM, EXCEPT TO CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE.

IN THE CASE OF PARTIAL PARTIAL DECONSTRUCTION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE STRUCTURE, NOT EXIST, NOT EXCEEDING 60% OF ITS TOTAL APPRAISED VALUE AS DETERMINED BY DCA RECONSTRUCTION WILL BE PERMITTED.

BUT THE EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE OR FUNCTION OF THE NON-CONFORMING USE CANNOT BE EXPANDED.

UM, SO JUST LIKE TAKING A STEP BACK, WHAT IS A NON-CONFORMING USE? RIGHT? THAT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN Y'ALL AND THE CITY DECIDE TO REZONE A CERTAIN PORTION OF PROPERTY, UM, AND THE CURRENT USE IS NO LONGER, NOW NO LONGER ALLOWED IN, UH, THE NEW ZONING, UH, REGULATIONS.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, UM, IF SOMETHING WAS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND HAD A, YOU KNOW, SMALL MANUFACTURING PLANT IN THERE, AND Y'ALL SWITCHED IT TO COMMERCIAL, THAT SMALL MANUFACTURING WOULD THEN BE A NON-CONFORMING USE, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT GONNA BE ALLOWED IN LIKE A GENERAL RETAIL TYPE COMMERCIAL, UM, SITUATION.

SO THAT'S WHAT A NON-CONFORMING USE IS, RIGHT? UH, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CITY'S 7.6, THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT SECTION.

UM, IT THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE TO HAVE THAT IN THERE LIKE THAT.

BUT HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO, UM, SOME OF THE NEW LAWS THAT HAVE BEEN, UM, ENACTED AND, AND WE'VE PREVIOUSLY TALKED ABOUT, UH, SB 9 29, UM, THE FIRST PART OF THAT DEALT WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS THAT STAFF, UH, WANTED TO INCLUDE IN THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, UM, GOING BACK, RIGHT? WE HAVE TO NOTIFY THEM A SPECIAL WAY.

SO WE JUST KIND OF REDID THE NOTIFICATION, UM, ORDINANCES, UH, AND WENT AHEAD AND INCLUDED THAT IN THE ORDINANCE.

THERE'S A SECOND PART TO THAT.

UM, AND, AND WHAT THAT IS, IS, SO NOW IT'S CODIFIED IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE TWO 11, UM, 0.019.

WHAT IT DOES IS STATE THAT IF A CITY REQUIRES AN OWNER OR LESSEE, UM, TO STOP A NON-CONFORMING USE, UM, THE CITY HAS TO NOTIFY THEM.

THEY HAVE TO, UM, OFFICIALLY TELL THEM THEY MUST STOP.

SO THAT'S LIKE A SEPARATE NOTICE.

UM, BUT, BUT REALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS, UM, IF THE CITY DECIDES TO MAKE AN OWNER OR OR LESSEE STOPPING NONCONFORMING USE, THEY HAVE TO COMPENSATE THEM.

UM, ESSENTIALLY THE LAWS MADE IT VERY NOT, YOU CAN THINK OF IT, IT'S NOT ANALOGOUS TO IMMINENT DOMAIN, BUT YOU CAN KIND OF THINK OF IT LIKE THAT JUST TO KIND OF GRASP THE CONCEPT.

UM, SO WHAT THAT DOES IS THE LAW NOW SAYS THAT IF A CITY REQUIRES YOU

[00:15:01]

TO STOP A NON-CONFORMING USE, THEY EITHER HAVE TO, UM, PAY FOR THE COST DIRECTLY RELATED TO STOPPING THE NON-CONFORMING USE.

SO THAT'S THINGS LIKE, UM, MOVING EXPENSES, LEASE, TERMINATION FEES, UM, MORTGAGE DISCHARGE, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

UM, IN ADDITION TO PAYMENT OF THE LOSS OF MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, UM, MARKET VALUE BEING EXACTLY THAT.

WHAT WOULD A LISTING AGENT, UM, PUT IT ON THE MARKET FOR? SO THAT, SO THAT'S ONE THING.

UM, THE OTHER WAY, SO IF THEY DIDN'T, IF THE CITY DECIDED NOT TO DO THAT, UM, YOU COULD CONTINUE THE NON-CONFORMING USE OF THE PROPERTY UNTIL THE OWNER OR LESSEE RECOVERS THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE PAYABLE, UM, UNDER THE PREVIOUS OPTION, UM, THROUGH CONTINUED BUSINESS ACTIVITIES.

SO THEY ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO CONTINUE OPERATING UNTIL THEY'VE RECOVERED ALL THE COSTS THAT IT WOULD TAKE, UM, TO DO THE FIRST OPTION.

SO THAT'S A LITTLE MORE CONVOLUTED, UH, RIGHT? BUT PRIMARILY IF THE CITY STOPS THEM, UM, FROM USING THAT NON-CONFORMING USE, UM, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY THEM ESSENTIALLY MOVING EXPENSES AND THE LOSS OF MARKET VALUE, UM, OF THAT PROPERTY.

UM, THAT DOES NOT APPLY IF, YOU KNOW, A NON-CONFORMING USE HAS, THEY'VE STOPPED USING IT FOR SIX MONTHS.

UM, RIGHT? SO IF IT WAS A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, THEY DECIDED JUST TO STOP DOING THAT.

IF THEY STOPPED FOR SIX MONTHS, LIKE, AND THIS IS KIND OF MATCHES WHAT THE CITY CODE CODE IS, THIS PROVISION, THIS, NONE OF THIS APPLIES, NONE OF THIS STATE LAW APPLIES.

UM, SO LOOKING BACK AT SECTION 7.6, IT DOESN'T MATTER, RIGHT? IF CASUALTY LOSS IS 20%, 60%, 65%, A HUNDRED PERCENT, UM, ARGUABLY THIS BILL WOULD TAKE EFFECT BECAUSE IF THE CITY SAYS, OH NO, YOUR CASUALTY LOSS IS 60 MORE THAN 60%, YOU CAN'T REBUILD THIS NON-CONFORMING USE, WELL THEN THIS BILL WOULD COME INTO PLAY.

UM, AND YOU'D PROBABLY HAVE TO DO SOME OF THOSE, UM, PAYMENT STEPS OR, I MEAN, REALLY, I DON'T THINK THE SECOND ONE WOULD COME INTO PLAY AT THAT POINT BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T BE OPERATING OUT OF A BURNED OUT BUILDING, LET'S JUST CALL IT BURNED OUT BUILDING, SO THAT YOU COULDN'T CONTINUE BUSINESS OPERATIONS WITHOUT ALREADY REBUILDING.

SO THAT'S REALLY NOT GONNA COME INTO PLAY, UM, WITH A CASUALTY LOSS, UH, PROVISION LIKE SECTION 7.6 OF THE CITY OF SODIUM CODE.

UM, SO THAT'S KIND OF HOW IT RELATES BACK TO, UM, SOTOS 7.6 CASUALTY LOSS PROVISIONS.

UM, YOU KNOW, IT, LIKE I SAID AT THE BEGINNING, IT'S FINE IF IT STAYS LIKE IT IS, IT'S FINE.

IF YOU UP THE PERCENTAGE, IT'S FINE IF YOU LOWER THE PERCENTAGE.

UM, IT'S FINE IF YOU REMOVE IT ALTOGETHER.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.

IT'S FINE IF YOU LEAVE IT HOW IT IS.

UM, BUT JUST KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, IF STAFF EVER SAYS, OH NO, THERE'S BEEN A CASUALTY LOSS.

YOU AND, AND YOU'RE A NON-CONFORMING USE, THIS MAY COME INTO PLAY.

UM, OF NOTE, YOU KNOW, 7.6 ISN'T LIKE, UH, THIS CITY WOULD HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, INITIATE THAT AND SAY, RIGHT, YOU, YOU CAN'T REBUILD.

SO THAT WOULD BE LIKE AN OFFICIAL ACTION AT THAT POINT, PROBABLY ADMINISTRATIVELY THAT WOULD TRIGGER THIS.

UM, BUT ANYWAY, AND THAT'S ABOUT ALL I HAVE AS IT RELATES TO THE PROVISION WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, TODAY.

SO UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WE CAN DISCUSS OR, UH, MR. AU, UH, YES.

ON THE NON-CONFORMING USE, UM, WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT MARKET VALUE, I READ THAT THEY WERE SAYING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY THE DAY PRIOR TO THAT PROPERTY BECOMING NON-CONFORMING.

SO IF WE HAVE A ZONING CHANGE AND WE DETERMINE THAT, NOW YOU'RE NON-CONFORMING JULY THE FIRST 2024, BUT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO USE THE PROPERTY, BUT WE, THAT PROPERTY BURNS OUT MM-HMM, AND IT'S PAST WHATEVER OUR ORDINANCE IS, WHETHER IT'S 60% OR WHATEVER WE DECIDE TO DO, UM, THEN IS THE MARKET VALUE THE MARKET VALUE

[00:20:01]

BEFORE THE DAY BEFORE THE FIRE? OR DOES IT GO BACK TO THE VERY FIRST DAY WHEN IT REALLY BECOMES NON-CONFORMING? DO WE KNOW IT WOULD BE MARKET VALUE? I BELIEVE THE DAY BEFORE, NOT ALL THE WAY BACK.

GOING BACK IN TIME, IT WOULD BE MORE OF A PRESENT MARKET VALUE.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS, THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING.

I I THINK THAT WOULD KIND OF OPEN IT UP TO SOME DEBATE.

UM, AND IN THESE SAME PROVISIONS, RIGHT, THAT ALL THOSE NUMBERS, THE, YOU KNOW, IF THE CITY WAS TO PAY YOU, THAT IS CITY DETERMINED, RIGHT? THE CITY WOULD DETERMINE WHAT AMOUNT THAT IS.

UM, IF THE OWNER OR LESSEE ISN'T HAPPY WITH THAT, THEY CAN UH, THEY CAN APPEAL, OKAY, UM, TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

IF, YOU KNOW, THE OWNER OR THE LESSEE'S STILL HAPPY WITH THAT, THEY CAN FULLY, FULLY APPEAL AT THE JUDICIAL LEVEL, UM, TO GO THROUGH THAT.

SO I, THAT WOULD, I FEEL LIKE THAT BRINGS IN A LOT OF COMPLICATIONS THAT, YOU KNOW, COULD BE, I DON'T, IT DOESN'T EXACTLY SPEAK TO I THINK ALL THAT, YOU KNOW, BUT IT DOES OPEN UP THE HOMEOWNER.

IT GIVES THEM SOME LEEWAY IF THE, THE CITY DETERMINES WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE A, A FAIR MARKET VALUE AND THEY'RE NOT HAPPY WITH IT, THEY CAN CONTINUE TO APPEAL THAT UP SO THEY CAN BY THEMSELVES.

YEAH, SOMETIMES, YEAH, THERE'S THE, THE FIRST DECISION BY THE CITY, UM, SECOND DECISION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, OR IT GOES UP TO DECISION, UM, OR THEN IF THEY'RE UNHAPPY, YEAH, THEY CAN, OR FILE IT IN THE REAL COURTS AS WELL, APPEAL IT IN REAL COURTS COURT.

THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD IS RELATIVE TO THE EXPENSES, IT SAID, UH, INCLUDING EXPENSES RELATED TO DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, TERMINATION OF A LEASE OR DISCHARGE OF A MORTGAGE.

SO I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, SO IF SOMEONE HAS A HOME THAT IS BURNED OUT, AND HOW ARE, IS THE CITY GOING TO HAVE TO HELP THEM WITH DEMOLITION TO RELOCATE THEIR FAMILY, UM, TO DISCHARGE THAT MORTGAGE? I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND OR DOES THAT JUST HAPPEN IF THE CITY GIVES THEM A FAIR MARKET VALUE, THEY'RE TO DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN WITH THAT FAIR MARKET VALUE, OR THEY GIVE THEM A FAIR MARKET VALUE PLUS HAVE TO HELP THEM WITH DEMOLITION RELOCATION AND THINGS LIKE THAT? YEAH, SO I THINK WE GOTTA LOOK BACK.

THIS IS NOT WRITTEN FOR A CASUALTY LOSS SITUATION.

I JUST THINK IT'S CASUALTY LOSS WOULD IMPLICATE THIS.

DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, TERMINATION, LEASE DISCHARGE OR MORTGAGE.

SO GOING INTO ALL THAT, I, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY GETTING A LITTLE SPECIFIC FOR WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR TODAY.

UM, I, I THINK WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, WHAT ALL EXPENSES HAPPEN IF THE CITY WAS TO EVER DO THAT AND MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, ALL I CAN REALLY SPEAK TO AT THIS POINT IS WHAT DOES IT LABEL AS, YOU KNOW, THOSE EXPENSES? YES.

UM, I THINK WHEN YOU GET INTO A CASUALTY LOSS PROVISION, RIGHT, THERE'S A LOT OF LOT MORE COMPLICATIONS BECAUSE WHAT THAT EXACTLY, THERE'S A MORTGAGE, THERE'S GONNA BE INSURANCE PROCEEDS.

HOW IS ALL THAT GONNA RELATE? SO I THINK THAT'S REALLY GONNA BE A VERY SPECIFIC, YOU KNOW, FACT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE THAT YOU'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH AT THE TIME IF THE CITY CHOSE TO DO THAT.

SO MY LAST QUESTION, JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR.

WE ONLY THINK THIS NON-CON CONFORMING CLAUSE IS GONNA COME REALLY INTO FACT WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES VERSUS BUSINESSES.

IT COULD COME INTO EFFECT WITH ANYTHING.

NO.

ANYTIME YOU MAKE A NON-CONFORMING USE, THIS COULD COME INTO EFFECT.

IT, IT DOESN'T, IT'S NOT COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC, RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC, INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC AS IF THE CITY DECIDES TO MAKE SOMETHING A NON-CONFORMING USE, UM, AND THEY, THEY MAKE YOU STOP THAT NON-CONFORMING USE.

IT'S NOT JUST, AND THE CITY DOESN'T NORMALLY DO THAT.

THEY DON'T NORMALLY SAY, OH, YOU HAVE YOU, YOU CAN'T DO THIS ANYMORE.

THAT'S NOT NORMALLY SOMETHING THE CITY DOES.

AND, AND CHARLES CAN PROBABLY SPEAK TO WHETHER THEY'VE EVER DONE THAT RIGHT OUTSIDE OF A CASUALTY LOSS SITUATION, UM, OR NON-USE FOR SIX MONTHS, WHICH IS PRETTY STANDARD AND CONTEMPLATED, UM, BY THIS SENATE BILL, RIGHT? UM, BUT YEAH, IF YOU MAKE SOMETHING NONCONFORMING USE UNTIL THAT OWNER AT ANY POINT IN TIME BEFORE, YOU KNOW, SIX MONTHS OF NON-USE, THEN THIS IS GONNA COME INTO PLAY REGARDLESS OF WHAT THAT, YOU KNOW, NON-PERFORMING USE WAS.

AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I THINK AT THE BEGINNING WHEN MR. BREWER STARTED, HE WAS SAYING, BASED ON WHAT WE HAD EXPERIENCED PRIOR THIS YEAR, MM-HMM, , UM, I'M JUST THINKING FUTURE SIDE FUTURE,

[00:25:01]

AND I CAN'T PREDICT THE FUTURE, BUT THE, THE CHANGES THAT WE WERE MAKING, THEY'RE GONNA, I GUESS, REALLY AFFECT SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS MORE SO THAN THE, THE, THE RETAIL SIDE OF IT.

I KNOW IT'S EVERYBODY, IT'S ALL OF IT.

BUT THE, THE, THE, THE PEOPLE THAT WERE MORE CONCERNED WERE THE HOMEOWNERS.

WE NEVER HAD ANYONE FOR BUSINESS TO COME IN AND EXPRESS THEIR CONCERN WITH THE CHANGE BECAUSE IT'S GONNA INCLUDE RETAIL IN IT.

IT WAS JUST THE HOMEOWNERS THAT CAME IN THAT WERE AFRAID THEIR HOMES WERE GOING TO BE LOST TO DO A NEW BUILDING.

AND THAT'S, I, THAT'S WHAT I WAS JUST TRYING TO, TO TRY TO REALLY UNDERSTAND, DO WE REALLY THINK WE'RE GONNA BE HELD TO THAT THE CITY WILL BE HELD TO THIS DEMOLITION AND ALL THOSE VARIOUS THINGS? YEAH.

AND, AND, AND LIKE I SAID, THAT'S ONLY GONNA COME INTO PLAY WITH A CASUALTY LOSS.

UM, I'M GONNA SPEAK IN VERY GENERAL TERMS AS IT RELATES TO NON-CONFORMING USES.

UM, AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMETHING'S REZONED.

WHEN WE, WHEN THE CITY REZOS SOMETHING, RIGHT? THEY SAY WE'RE GOING FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO GENERAL RETAIL.

EVERYTHING THAT'S THERE IS FINE, RIGHT? NOTHING, NOTHING CHANGES.

THE CITY NEVER SAYS, OH, YOU'VE GOTTA STOP THIS.

NOT, NOT, THIS IS A NON-CORE USE.

YOU MUST STOP IT BY THIS DAY.

THE CITY REALLY NEVER DOES THAT.

WHEN, WHEN RE WHEN, WHEN IT REZONES.

UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S THE WAY YOU KNOW ALL WHAT THE ZONING YOU'RE REFERRING TO SPECIFICALLY EXHIBITED AS WELL.

IT WASN'T EVER SAYING, YOU'VE GOTTA STOP THIS.

UM, I JUST THINK THE CONCERN WAS DO WE HAVE TO STOP THIS? UM, AND THIS PROVISION GOT, YOU KNOW, PUT IN THE MIX.

UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, NON-FORMAL USES REALLY THE ONLY TIME THE CITY WOULD, UM, SAY YOU COULDN'T DO IT, JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING, ABSENT, UH, CASUALTY LOSS WAS AFTER SIX MONTHS OF NON-USE.

IF, IF THEY DON'T USE THAT USE FOR SIX MONTHS, THEN THE NON-CONFORMING USE IS TERMINATED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CALEB.

APPRECIATE IT.

ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTION? QUESTION AND MS. CAES, BEFORE YOU GO FORWARD, I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT THE CONVERSATION, BUT JUST SO STAFF KNOWS, OUR SCREENS ARE, ARE BLACK OR DARK UP, UP HERE RIGHT NOW WORKING.

THANK YOU MS. CAESAR, GO AHEAD PLEASE.

AND YOUR MIND, THIS IS PROBABLY FOR EITHER MS BESTER OR UH, MR. BREWER, UM, INSIDE THIS COURT OF THIS CODE.

DO WE KNOW HOW MANY RESIDENTS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES VERSUS COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS? AT THIS POINT, I'M GONNA SAY YES.

ONE OF THE ACTIONS THAT WE DID, UH, STAFF, PARTICULARLY BESTA AND HER STAFF DID SOME FIELD WORK.

THEY, THEY TOOK A VEHICLE, DROVE EVERY STREET WITHIN THIS ZONING AREA, STOPPED AND LOOKED AT EVERY TRACK OF LAND AND MADE A VISUAL PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED.

AND I USED THAT VERY FINELY.

YOU'RE SITTING IN A CAR TRULY KNOWING WHAT'S GOING IN THERE.

YOU MAY NOT BE A HUNDRED PERCENT KNOWING, BUT JUST FROM THEIR VISUAL ANALYSIS, UM, THEY WAS ABLE TO CREATE A, A WHOLLY EXCEL SPREADSHEET BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS OUR CITY COUNCIL WANTED TO KNOW IS HOW MANY PROPERTIES ARE BECO ARE WITH THIS EPI GOT APPROVED, WERE GOING TO BE, BECOME NON-CONFORMING.

AND WE HAVE THAT LIST CREATED.

NOW, I DO WANNA FLAG, UM, THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS BESTER, EXCUSE ME ONE SECOND, WONDERING.

SHE'S TALKING ABOUT THE, THE DARK SCREEN WITH, WITH, UM, I'M SORRY, I LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S BEST THAT BROUGHT UP IS WHAT IT WAS TO, UH, TO DO WITH US.

OH YES.

OUR ORDINANCE TALKS ABOUT, UH, STRUCTURE AS WELL AS USE.

SO SOMEONE, THE USE CAN BE, UM, CONFORMING, BUT THE STRUCTURE AND WITH THIS, UH, HAMPTON CORRIDOR CHARACTER CORRIDOR, WHATEVER CHARACTER CODE, IT'S GONNA CREATE MORE OF, UM, NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES RATHER THAN USE, BECAUSE THE CODE IS, ALL THESE BUILDINGS HAVE TO BE LIKE THIS AND ALL THIS, BUT THE BUILDINGS THAT WE HAVE, WHEREAS ESPECIALLY ALONG TON WHERE WE HAVE, UH, RETAIL, THEY MAY BE CONFORMING IN TERMS OF USE, BUT THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, THE WAY IT'S BUILT IS NOT WHAT THE COURT IS LOOKING

[00:30:01]

FOR.

AND LET ME ADD TO THAT.

SO OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION SEVEN, WHEN YOU READ IT, THE TITLE, IT TALKS ABOUT NONCONFORMING USE AND STRUCTURES.

WHEN THAT FLAG GOT WAVED TO US, IT MADE US QUESTION, WE WERE LOOKING AT NON-CONFORMING USE.

WE HAD NOT GONE INTO THE FIELD TO LOOK AT NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES.

IT MADE US THINK THAT WE HAVE ANOTHER TASK WE NEED TO DO BECAUSE OF THE POSITION THE CITY MAY BE PLACING ITSELF INTO.

BUT WE SPECIFICALLY WENT BACK AND READ SENATE BILL 9 2 9 AND IT SPECIFICALLY ONLY SPEAKS OF USE.

SO I'M GONNA SAY UNOFFICIALLY THE DRIVE BY THAT, THE DRIVE-BYS THAT MY STAFF DID OUT OF 400 PLUS PROPERTIES, IT APPEARED TO IDENTIFY MAYBE ABOUT 69 OR IT WAS, UH, THE TOTAL OF PROP NUMBER OF PROPERTIES IS 469 AND ONLY 69 PROPERTIES SEEM TO BE NONCONFORMING USE.

SO PLEASE NOTE THAT AS A REMINDER, THE THE PROCESS FOR THE ZONING CHANGE CAME THROUGH YOU.

YOU MADE YOUR RECOMMENDATION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL.

THEY TABLED IT AT THE FIRST MEETING, SECOND MEETING, THEY CAME BACK AND THE ACTION THEY TOOK WAS TO RESCINDED REMANDED BACK TO YOU FOR THE ADDITIONAL WORK.

WE ARE NOT STARTING THAT PROCESS.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK WE SHARED WITH YOU, THERE'S GOING TO BE A JOINT CITY COUNCIL P AND ZDDC MEETING IN AUGUST AND I THINK THAT'S AUGUST THE 23RD WHERE THEY'RE GONNA COME BACK AND Y'ALL GOING TO BRAINSTORM TOGETHER.

PART OF THIS PROCESS ALSO IS INCLUDING OUR NEW CITY MANAGER, MAD GOEY.

SO WE'RE HAVING SOME DISCUSSIONS.

WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IS ACTUALLY STARTED THE BALL RUNNING EARLY BY TALKING ABOUT NON-CONFORMING USE, TALKING ABOUT A D DOING WHAT WE DID WITH SENATE BILL 9 2 9.

THE OTHER AREA THAT JUST CLICKED TO ME, WHAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT WAS DISCUSSED WAS MULTIFAMILY.

THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AS A CONCERN WHETHER THE CITY WAS OPENING UP A WHOLE CAN OF WORMS IF THE SECTION, IF THE NEW HAMPTON ROAD CODES DID NOT SPECIFICALLY ESTABLISH ANY DENSITY REQUIREMENTS.

SO WE JUST HAVE SOME MORE DISCUSSIONS WE HAVE TO DO WITH THAT.

AND I'LL JUST MAKE A COMMENT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE FOR 7.6, WE'RE NOT HERE FOR UM, HAMPTON ROAD CORRIDOR.

WE'RE NOT HERE FOR, UM, ACCESSORY REBUILDING UNITS.

WE'RE TALKING TODAY ABOUT 7.6.

UM, SO WE NEED TO KIND OF RETRAIN OUR, OUR FOCUS BACK ON THAT.

JUST GOING BACK TO THE, ALRIGHT.

THANK YOU MR RULE.

MR. SMITH COMMISSIONERS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS MR. BELL? I DO.

IF THE NON-CONFORMING USE LANGUAGE IN THE CODE SIMPLY WENT AWAY, WOULD THE DEFAULT POSITION BE THAT PEOPLE CAN CONTINUE TO USE THEIR PROPERTY REGARDLESS OF CASUALTY OR ANYTHING WITHOUT TRIGGERING ANY CLAUSES THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE CITY TO PAY MORE TO PAY THEM FOR THE USE? I DON'T THINK WE COULD GET RID OF THE NON-CONFORMING USE LANGUAGE ALTOGETHER.

SO THAT'S ALL OF, UM, SECTION SEVEN.

UM, I THINK YOU COULD GET RID OF THE CASUALTY LOSS PROVISION IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANTED TO DO.

UM, I WOULD NOT SUGGEST GETTING RID OF ALL OF NON-CONFORMING USE.

'CAUSE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE SOME GUIDELINES AS TO WHAT TO DO ONCE SOMETHING IS A NON-CONFORMING USE.

UM, IF THERE'S NOTHING THERE, THEN YOU'D PROBABLY HAVE TO SPEAK TO IT IN THE ORDINANCE DIRECTLY OR, OR NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN.

SO, BUT THAT WOULD BE A, A FULL REPEAL OF ALL OF SECTION SEVEN RATHER THAN 7.6, WHICH JUST DEALS WITH CASUALTY LOSS.

OKAY, SO FOR 7.6, IF, IF THAT LANGUAGE WENT AWAY, UM, ALL THE OTHER CASUALTY LOSS, LIKE NON-USE WOULD STILL BE IN EFFECT.

BUT SPECIFICALLY IF THEY GOT A FIRE AND IT BURNED DOWN 20%, THEY COULD REBUILD.

IF IT BURNED DOWN 70%, THEY COULD REBUILD SAME USE, RIGHT? CONTINUE.

SO YEAH, IF YOU GOT RID OF 7.6 ALTOGETHER, SO LONG AS UM, THE USE IS NOT DISCONTINUED FOR SIX MONTHS REGARDLESS OF THE LEVEL OF DESTRUCTION, THEY COULD CONTINUE THAT USE.

ALRIGHT, MR. BURKE? YES.

SO AGAIN, I'LL GO TO THIS SLIDE.

THIS IS WHERE WE'RE CONTINUING IN THE SECOND BULLET, THE ACTUAL SECOND

[00:35:01]

SENTENCE.

UH, DURING THE DISCUSSION OF THIS AGENDA ITEM AT YOUR, UH, CONTINUATION MEETING ON JUNE THE 25TH, SOME MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION COMMUNICATED THEY WERE COMFORTABLE WITH THE CITY'S CURRENT 60% THRESHOLD NUMBER FOR RESTORING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES.

AND SOME MEMBERS COMMUNICATED THEY WERE COMFORTABLE WITH RECOMMENDING THAT THE 60% THRESHOLD BE AMENDED TO ESTABLISH NO THRESHOLD NUMBER WITH THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT RECONSTRUCTION BY THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD COMMENCE WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THE DATE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER'S PROPERTY BECOMING PARTIALLY DESTRUCTIVE.

DURING THAT MEETING ALSO, UH, SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION WANTED TO HEAR MORE ABOUT SENATE BILL TWO, WHICH WE HAVE DONE TONIGHT TO TALK ABOUT COMPENSATION.

SO WHERE WE'RE SAYING IS WE HAVE BROUGHT IT BACK.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE ANY ACTION TONIGHT.

WE JUST, ALL OF THIS IS PART OF DISCUSSION.

IF YOU ELECT, IF YOU ARE READY, REMEMBER WE JUST PUT A REVISED PACKAGE ON YOUR DIOCESE TO TONIGHT THAT WHILE IT HAS MEDICINAL COMMENTS, IT WASN'T GIVEN TO YOU IN ADVANCE.

IF YOU WANNA TAKE THAT BACK TO READ IT, TO DIGEST ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE GIVEN THE CITY ATTORNEY, THAT'S YOUR AUTHORITY, COUNSEL IS NOT RUSHING YOU TO DO THIS.

AGAIN, REMEMBER, NOTHING OFFICIALLY HAS COME FROM COUNSEL OTHER THAN THE CASE.

SO THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT IF YOU ARE READY.

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS PLANNING ZONING CON, CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

SECTION SEVEN, NONCONFORMING USE STRUCTURES SUBSECTION 7.6, RESTORATION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND BY MOTION, INITIATE OR NOT INITIATE THE PROCESS TO CONSIDER AMENDING THIS SECTION OF THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE.

I'LL ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU FEEL WE HAVEN'T ADDRESSED OR GIVEN TO YOU, BUT IT'S IN YOUR HANDS.

WHAT THIS RIGHT NOW THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU MR. BREWER, IS RELATIVE TO DALLAS, THEY DID NOT PUT A TIME PARAMETER.

THERE'S, THEY HAVE NO TIME PARAMETER FOR RECONSTRUCTION.

AND I'M THINKING THE OTHER TWO CITIES THAT YOU ALL HAVE PRESENTED AT US THIS EVENING, VERY MUCH IN LINE WITH EVERYONE ELSE.

SO IT REALLY DOESN'T CHANGE MY THINKING AND, UH, TONIGHT AND I, AND I'M COMFORTABLE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION.

ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS.

ANYBODY ELSE? I, MS. SUSAN, MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. IS PFLUGERVILLE NORTH OF DA, UH, NORTH OF AUSTIN.

YOU CAN'T TELL WHEN YOU'RE OUTTA ONE CITY LIMITS OUT OF THE OTHER.

I USED TO LIVE IN PFLUGERVILLE WHEN I WORKED FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN, JUST MYSELF.

, YES.

THIS NORTH SIDE OF AUSTIN.

AND IT'S, AND THIS GROWING MS. BROOKS, UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF AND THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS SINCE WE'RE NOT TECHNICALLY TALKING ABOUT HAMPTON ROAD CORRIDOR, BUT I THINK WHEN WE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY HEARING THAT THEIR PROPERTIES COULD BECOME NON-CONFORMING, UH, AS A RESULT OF SOMETHING LIKE A FIRE, UM, NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, UM, IF IT'S DESTROYED AT A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE BASED ON CONVERSATIONS FIR FOLLOW UP CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY, UM, DO YOU KNOW IF YOU ALL WOULD BE RECOMMENDING BASED ON THE INPUT YOU'RE HEARING A PERCENTAGE OR RECONSTRUCTION COMMENCING WITH A TIME PERIOD? FIRST ONE COMMENT, THE NONCONFORMING DOES NOT GET CREATED 'CAUSE OF THE FIRE.

WELL, IF IT'S DESTROYED MORE THAN 60%, NO NON-CONFORMING BOTTOM LINE GETS ESTABLISHED BECAUSE OF THE CITY'S ACTION TO CHANGE THE ZONING.

AND I'M I'M JUST SAYING WHAT I WAS HEARING FROM YOU, IT, IT LED ME TO BELIEVE YOU'RE, YOU WERE SAYING THAT THE NON-CONFORMING WAS ESTABLISHED BECAUSE OF THE FIRE.

I JUST WANTED TO GO BACK.

IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF THE FIRE.

THE NON-CONFORMING WAS STA IS ESTABLISHED BECAUSE OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY OR THE PROPERTY ON WHOEVER CAN CHANGE THE ZONING.

I'M SORRY, THAT'S WHAT I MEANT.

WITHOUT REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE HAMPTON ROAD.

NO, NO.

WHAT I'M REFERRING TO IS CITYWIDE.

CORRECT.

IT'S THE BOOK.

NON-CONFORMING GETS ESTABLISHED WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR REGULATIONS.

YOU SAY WHERE THESE USAGES ARE ESTABLISHED IN YOUR SCHEDULE OF USE CHART.

AND IF YOU'RE NOW GOING TO, FOR EXAMPLE, TAKING CONFORMING USE THAT MAY HAVE THE X ON THE CHART AND NOW SAY IT'S NOT ALLOWED IN THAT DISTRICT, YOU ARE ESTABLISHING NOW THAT USE IS BEING NONCONFORMING BECAUSE OF YOUR ZONING ACTION.

NOTHING TO DO WHATSOEVER WITH THE FIRE.

THE FIRE OR THE CASUALTY IS A ANOTHER STEP THAT HELPS DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN REBUILD.

AND RIGHT NOW THE CITY'S REGULATIONS HAVE THAT 60% THRESHOLD.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO BRING US YEAH, BACK.

GOT IT.

NON-CONFORMING IS, IS ESTABLISHED BECAUSE OF THE

[00:40:01]

ZONING ACTION.

SOMETHING COULD BE NON-CONFORMING FOR SIX MONTHS, FIVE YEARS, 20 YEARS.

AS LONG AS I USE THIS CONTINUED AND NOTHING'S HAPPENED TO IT.

YOU, YOU COULD BE NON-CONFORMING FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

SO LIKE MR. BRUCE IS SAYING, A FIRE IN HIMSELF DOESN'T MAKE SOMETHING NON-CONFORMING.

THAT'S JUST WHAT HAPPENS.

UM, HOW DO YOU LOSE YOUR LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STATUS? ONE WAY TO LOSE YOUR LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STATUS RIGHT NOW IS SECTION 7.6 CASUALTY LOSS.

AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER SECTION, THE REGULATIONS THAT AS THE ATTORNEY REFERENCED, THAT ESTABLISHED, AND IT IS WRITTEN ABOUT THAT SIX MONTHS STATUS.

IF THAT USE IS NOT CONTINUED FOR THAT SIX MONTHS PERIOD.

AND AS I SHARED BEFORE, SOME OF THE WAYS CITIES THAT I'VE WORKED FOR, UH, THAT WE KIND OF BASE IT ON WOULD BE, IS, UH, UTILITY.

EVEN THOUGH SOMEBODY COULD STILL CONTINUE UTILITY BILLING AND NOBODY PHYSICALLY BE THERE.

IF WE LOOKED AT THE COUNT AND THE ACCOUNT HAD BEEN OFF FOR SIX MONTHS, WE WILL SAY THAT PARTICULAR RESIDENTIAL HOME THAT YOU ARE NOT USING THAT HOME 'CAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE WATER USE THAT COULD BE CHALLENGED.

BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE SUCCESSFULLY BASED ON SOME OF OUR DECISIONS.

MS. BELL, UH, IF A HOMEOWNER BECAME NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DO THEIR USE FOR SIX MONTHS, WILL THAT STILL TRIGGER THE AMORTIZATION? JUST KIND OF CLARIFICATION.

HE BECAME NON-CONFORMING 'CAUSE OF HIS ZONING CHANGE.

AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, IF HE NOW CEASES HIS CURRENT USE, WHICH WAS NON-CONFORMING BEFORE AND BECAME NON-CONFORMING.

NOW IF HE CEASES THAT USE AND THAT SIX MONTHS IS DETERMINED, THEN HE HAS LOST THAT USE.

AND WOULD THAT TRIGGER THE CITY HAVING TO PAY HIM FOR HIS LOSS? NO.

AND ANOTHER KEY IS THE CITY ATTORNEY ADVISED AND WE WAS TRYING TO SHOW YOU WITH THE MOTORIZATION, IF THE CITY, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, CALEB, I WANT YOU TO HELP ME TO STAY IN LINE IF A PROP, IF THE CITY'S ACTION TAKES A PROPERTY FROM BEING CONFORMING TO NON-CONFORMING, AND THEN THAT NEXT STEP, THE CITY SAY YOU CAN'T OPERATE OR DO THAT ANYMORE, THAT'S WHERE THE SENATE BILL SECTION TWO IS COMING INTO.

OR AM I SAYING IT WRONG? RIGHT.

IT ONLY COMES INTO PLAY IF THE CITY SAYS YOU'RE A NON-CONFORMING USE AND YOU MUST STOP THAT NON-CONFORMING USE, WHETHER YOU ARE A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE AND THEY SAY YOU CAN'T, YOU'RE NO LONGER A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE.

OR IF IMMEDIATELY THEY SAY YOU'RE A NON-CONFORMING USE AND YOU MUST CEASE.

UM, USUALLY THE CITY ALLOWS YOU TO BE ILLEGAL.

NON-CONFORMING USE SOTO USUALLY ALLOWS YOU, I I I COULDN'T SPEAK TO AN EXAMPLE.

TYPICALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU'RE ILLEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE UNTIL THAT YOU DON'T USE IT ANYMORE.

ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ONE QUESTION MR. RAVEN? NO, GO AHEAD.

MR. BREWER.

COULD YOU READ, UM, WITH PFLUGERVILLE THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE, UH, THAT THEY USED RELATIVE TO TIMEFRAME COULD BE EXTENDED FOR GOOD CAUSE.

COULD YOU READ THAT PLEASE? READING THAT WHOLE SECTION THAT IS SECTION 8.4 0.9, DESTRUCTION OR DAMAGE OF A NON-CONFORMING USE.

FIRST BULLET TALKS ABOUT NATURAL OR ACCIDENTAL CAUSES.

NEXT BULLET.

A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE WHICH IS DAMAGED OR DESTROYED BY NATURAL OR ACCIDENTAL CAUSES MAY ONLY BE RECONSTRUCTIVES AS THIS WAS BEFORE SUCH HAPPENING WITHIN THE TIMELINES HEREIN PERMITTING FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF SUCH STRUCTURE MUST THEREAFTER COMMENCE WITH SIX MONTHS OF THE DAMAGING EVENT.

AND THE RECONSTRUCTION SHALL BE COMPLETED AS DETERMINED BY ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE DAMAGING EVENT.

THE TIMEFRAMES HEREIN MAY BE EXTENDED FOR GOOD CAUSE AS PROVEN TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR PROVIDED THERE IS NO ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE COMMUNITY.

LAST BULLET.

A STRUCTURE RESTORED UNDER THIS SECTION MUST BE RESTORED OR RECONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION AS SO AS TO HAVE NO GREATER GROSS FLOOR AREA BUILDING FOOTPRINT OR HEIGHT AS THE DAMAGED OR DESTROYED

[00:45:01]

STRUCTURE.

AND WE CAN GIVE US EMAIL TO YOU COPIES OF, OF WHAT WE FOUND TO HELP MAKE OUR REPORT COMPLETE.

THANK YOU MS. BREW.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, HEARING AND SEEING NO QUESTIONS, LET ME UH, TAKE A MOMENT TO RESTATE OUR CURRENT, UH, ORDINANCE, UH, WHICH I BELIEVE IS STATED IN OUR PACKET.

AND THEN I BELIEVE MR. BREWER WILL CORRECT ME.

I BELIEVE WE THEN HAVE THREE OPTIONS TO CONSIDER.

UH, BUT AS IT PERTAINS TO THE SETTLE, IT SAYS IF A STRUCTURE OCCUPIED BY A NONCONFORMING USE IS DESTROYED BY FIRE, THE ELEMENTS OR OTHER CALLS, IT MAY NOT BE REBUILT, SET TO CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE.

IN THE CASE OF PARTIAL DESTRUCTION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE STRUCTURE, UH, NOT EXCEEDING 60% OF ITS TOTAL APPRAISED VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE DALLAS COUNTY CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECONSTRUCTION WILL BE PERMITTED.

UH, BUT THE EXISTENCE SQUARE FOOTAGE OR FUNCTION OF THE NON-CONFORMING USE CANNOT BE EXPANDED.

UH, SO THAT'S CURRENTLY, IF WE READ 7.6, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD FIND.

NOW, MR. BREWER, I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

UH, OPTION ONE IS BASICALLY, AND I LIKE TO CALL THESE IN, UH, INFORMATION SESSIONS.

WE CAN HAVE ANOTHER INFORMATION SESSION WHERE WE CAN JUST HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION.

THAT'S OPTION NUMBER ONE.

OPTION NUMBER TWO, UH, A COMMISSIONER CAN MAKE A MOTION, UM, TO AMEND 7.6 AND THAT WILL BEGIN THE FORMAL PROCESS OF DISCUSSING HOW IT SHOULD BE AMENDED.

WE WOULDN'T MAKE THAT DECISION TONIGHT, BUT THE FORMAL PROCESS WOULD THEN BEGIN IF THERE'S A MOTION TO AMEND 7.6 OR NUMBER THREE, A COMMISSIONER COULD MAKE, UH, A MOTION TO NOT AMEND 7.6 AND BASICALLY SAY 7.6 IS FINE, JUST THE WAY IT IS.

AND THAT WOULD END THE DISCUSSION.

UH, MS. BREW, DO I HAVE THAT CORRECT? I WOULD, IT WOULD HELP ME IF YOU DECIDED THAT YOU DID WANT TO AMEND TO SEE WHAT THE GENERAL CONSIST IS.

SO WE'LL KNOW HOW TO BRING IT BACK 'CAUSE WE HAVE TO ADVERTISE IT.

SO IF THERE'S A MOTION TO AMEND, UH, BASICALLY THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE, UH, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A MOTION WITH SPECIFICITY THAT BASICALLY WE WANT TO AMEND IT AND THIS IS HOW WE WANT TO AMEND IT.

SO AGAIN, ONE OPTION ONE IS ANOTHER INFORMATIONAL SESSION FOR MORE INFORMATION.

TWO, A MOTION TO AMEND AND SPECIFY WHAT THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE.

SO THEN STAFF CAN PREPARE FOR THAT AND, AND PROPERLY NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY.

OR THREE, MOTION TO NOT AMEND.

LEAVE 7.6 THE WAY IT IS AND WE END THE DISCUSSION.

SO HAVING SAID THAT, UH, COMMISSIONERS IS THE MR. RAVEN, GO AHEAD.

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT A RECOMMENDATION COULD COME TO THE FLOOR TO AMEND AND VOTE ON THAT? THEN HAVE A DISCUSSION ON HOW THAT AMENDMENT MIGHT LOOK VERSUS BRINGING EVERYTHING TOGETHER AT ONE TIME TO JUST SEE IF PEOPLE FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD BE AMENDED AND IF THERE IS AGREEMENT OR NOT AGREEMENT, THEN WE WOULD GO FROM THERE.

THEN HOW WOULD WE AMEND IT? OKAY.

AND THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS YES.

SO, OH, WELL, I SAY YES AND THEN MR. SMITH TURNS HIS MIC ON.

SO MAYBE IT'S NO , BUT MR. SMITH, GO AHEAD.

I JUST, I WOULD JUST SAY I, I I WOULD SAY PROBABLY THE FIRST MOTION WOULD BE UNNECESSARY AT THAT POINT, Y'ALL, I MEAN Y'ALL CAN DISCUSS IT RIGHT NOW AND DECIDE WHAT YOU WANNA DO.

I DON'T THINK YOU NEED AN EXTRA MOTION TO DECIDE IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS HOW TO DO IT.

I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A NECESSARY STEP.

THANK YOU MR. SMITH FOR YOUR DIRECTION.

ALRIGHT, SO MR. RAVENEL, YOU PUT THE QUESTION OUT THERE.

SO WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE? WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? UM, MR. CHAIR, BECAUSE MANY OF THE RESIDENTS ARE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT LOSING THEIR RIGHT TO USE THEIR PROPERTY THE WAY IT IS.

MY RECOMMENDATION THAT WE BE TO AMEND SECTION 0.6 AND I WOULD GO WITH, WITH RECONSTRUCTION TO COMMENCE WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF DATE OF DESTRUCTION AND TIMEFRAME COULD BE EXTENDED FOR GOOD CAUSE.

UM, IN DEALING WITH THE PLANNING THE DIRECTOR, THAT'S BASICALLY WHERE I, THAT'S MY POSITION.

AND LET, AND LET ME ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO YOU, MR. RAVENEL.

UH, WOULD THERE, 'CAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE PFLUGERVILLE HAD, UH, SOME LANGUAGE IN THEIR ORDINANCE THAT GIVES LIKE A TIMEFRAME UNTIL, UH, AS IT RELATES TO WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION OR THE REPAIR SHOULD BE COMPLETE.

UH, WOULD YOU ADD THAT IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION OR NO? YES, I, I WOULD HAVE SOME TYPE OF LANGUAGE THAT WOULD STATE IT NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD BECAUSE THERE ARE CERTAIN SITUATIONS WHERE PEOPLE WILL DRAG THEIR FEET IN COMPLETING IT AND WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE OS SORES OR AS THE LANGUAGE WAS SAYING, UM, IT COULD BE HAZARDOUS, UH, FOR THE COMMUNITY OR, OR

[00:50:01]

ET CETERA.

SO I WOULD, UM, ADD LANGUAGE FOR THAT AS WELL.

AND I'M NOT GONNA LET YOU OFF THE HOOK JUST YET.

SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, WHAT IS YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THE TIMEFRAME? OKAY, IT STARTS WITHIN 12 MONTHS.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT WHEN THE WORK SHOULD BE COMPLETED? UNDERSTANDING WITH WHAT YOU JUST SAID, EXTENSIONS CAN BE GIVEN FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOW, RIGHT? BUT, BUT IN A, AS A GENERAL RULE, I WOULD SAY, UH, WORK COMPLETED WITHIN ONE YEAR, BUT CONSIDERING THE EFFECTS OF COVID AND SUPPLIES AND DEMAND PRESENTLY, UM, MAYBE A YEAR AND A HALF, BUT I WOULD SAY A YEAR, BUT WITH THE PROVISION THAT THERE COULD BE AN EXTENSION, UH, FOR GOOD CAUSE.

SO NOW MR. BELL, I'M GONNA JUMP TO YOU BECAUSE WHAT I DON'T, I DON'T WANT US TO HAVE LIKE SIX DIFFERENT DISCUSSIONS.

SO WE'RE GONNA GO WITH MR. NULL'S CURRENT PROPOSAL, SEE WHAT YOU FEEL ABOUT IT.

IF YOU WANNA MODIFY.

SO AGAIN, HIS, HIS SUGGESTION WOULD BE RECONSTRUCTION COMMENCE WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF DATA INSTRUCTION COMPLETED WITH ONE WITHIN ONE YEAR OR YEAR AND A HALF.

THAT'S WHERE WE'RE KIND OF AT RIGHT NOW.

UH, BUT ALSO, UH, WITH THE ABILITY FOR STAFF TO GIVE EXTENSIONS WITH GOOD CALL SHOWN.

SO UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT'S HIS RECOMMENDATION.

DO YOU AGREE, DISAGREE, UH, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? WELL, I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION.

UM, THIS IS A COMPLICATED SITUATION HERE.

IF WE, IF WE FOLLOW COMMISSIONER RENELL'S ADVICE AND PUT IN THE TIME STIPULATIONS AND SO ON, IF THE OWNER, UH, WOULD WE STILL AS A CITY END UP COMPENSATING THE OWNER FOR LACK OF USE? MR. BUR KAYLA HELP IF I NEED IT.

AGAIN, IT'S ONLY IF AFTER A PROPERTY IS TAKEN FROM CONFORMING STATUS STATUS TO NONCONFORMING STATUS AND THE CITY THROUGH ITS CITY COUNCIL TAKES THAT NEXT STEP OF THEN ORDERING THAT PROPERTY OWNER TO CEASE ISSUES.

SO AS LONG AS THEY GET TO KEEP USING IT, WE'RE GOOD TO GO.

AND BECAUSE IF, IF WE USE YOUR, UH, SCENARIO, THEY WILL GET TO KEEP THEIR USE JUST WITH SOME GUARDRAILS ON SO THEY DON'T DRAG THEIR FEET OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

UM, YEAH, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I, I THINK I AGREE WITH MR. RENELL'S.

UH, OKAY.

ASSESSMENT.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MS. CAESAR.

UM, LITTLE CONFUSION.

MR. RNE COMMENCE WITHIN 12 MONTHS AND COMPLETED WITHIN 12 MONTHS WITHIN ONE YEAR.

IS THAT COMMENCEMENT WITHIN 12 MONTHS AND THEN AN ADDITIONAL YEAR FOR IT TO BE COMPLETED? YES.

AM I HEARING CORRECTLY? YES.

OKAY THEN I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.

'CAUSE YOU MENTIONED PFLUGERVILLE AGAIN.

LEMME MAKE ONE COMMENT JUST TO BE SURE.

PFLUGERVILLE HAD COMMENCED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DAMAGING EVENT.

AND RECONSTRUCTION SHALL BE COMPLETED AS DETERMINED BY ISSUES OF CERTIFICATE OF BUREAUCRACY WITHIN ONE YEAR.

I I I'M, I I KNEW PFLUGERVILLE SAID SIX MONTHS, BUT I'M MORE IN LINE WITH 12 MONTHS.

MR. BELL QUESTION, IF THE OWNER FAILS TO INITIATE THE REBUILD TIME OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, THEN THEY REMAIN NON-COMPLIANT.

DO THEY LOSE THEIR ABILITY TO REBUILD AS IS? YES.

YEAH, BECAUSE IT'S SIX MONTHS AND SO THEN THAT WOULD BE THE CASE WHERE THE CITY'S TELLING THEM THEY CAN NO LONGER USE IT, RIGHT? NO, WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE NOW, IF THAT DAMAGE IS MORE THAN 60%, THE CITY REGULATIONS ARE SAYING THAT YOU LOST YOUR ABILITY TO REBUILD AND YOU HAVE TO CONFORM TO CURRENT REGULATIONS.

IT IS NOT ORDERING THEM TO STOP JUST TO CONFORM TO THE NEW CODE.

IF IF, OKAY.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

THEY WOULD HAVE AN ADDITIONAL YEAR TO COMPLETE, UH, THE UH, UH, REBUILD, UH, UH, AGAIN, UH, WITH THE OP OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO CITY, UH, FOR CITY STAFF FOR POSSIBLE EXTENSIONS FOR GOOD CALL SHOWN IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS REQUIRED.

AND AND, AND JUST TO ADD TO THAT, BASICALLY MR. DALE'S RECOMMENDATION PROPERTY COULD BE, UH, DAMAGED 75%, 85, 5%, 95%.

IT WOULDN'T MATTER THE PERCENTAGE, UH, THE PERSON COULD STILL REBUILD.

UH, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO START RECONSTRUCTION, UH, WITHIN 12 MONTHS.

UH, SO IT TAKES THE PERCENTAGE OUT OF IT STILL COULD BE RE REBUILD START WITHIN 12 MONTHS UNTIL THE SEASONS POINT.

THEN

[00:55:01]

THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION.

SO I JUST WANT, I'M, I'M RESTATING STUFF NOT ONLY FOR EVERYBODY'S BEEN FEEL ALSO FOR MY BENEFIT.

AND MR. BRULE, YOU GOT SOMETHING? YEAH, I WAS GONNA SAY 'CAUSE IT APPEARS LIKE THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT THE CHART BACK UP.

YOU'RE KIND OF GOING TOWARD BAR SPRINGS AND DUNCANVILLE, BUT ADDING THE CAVEAT THAT IT HAS TO BE COMPLETED AGAIN, THERE IS REED RECONSTRUCTION MUST COMMENCE WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THE DATE OF DESTRUCTION FOLLOWING PFLUGERVILLE SHALL BE COMPLETED AS DETERMINED BY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE DAMAGE EVENT.

PLUS THE LANGUAGE OF THE TIMEFRAMES HERE MAY BE EXTENDED FOR GOOD CAUSE IS PROVEN TO THEN THEIR CASE PLANNING DIRECTOR PROVIDED THERE IS NO ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE COMMUNITY.

BUT JUST TO MAKE A DISTINCTION, THEIRS IS SAYING WITHIN THE DAMAGE AND EVENT, WHAT MR. RAVENEL IS SUGGESTING IS THAT IT HAS TO GET STARTED WITHIN A YEAR.

AND FROM THE YEAR THAT IT GET, FROM THE TIME THAT THE RECONSTRUCTION STARTS, THEN YOU HAVE A YEAR TO COMPLETE IT.

SO HE, I THINK YOURS GIVES A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF THE TIMING.

IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE STRETCHING THAT DEMOLISHED HOME COULD BE OVER TWO YEARS.

THERE'S UP TO NO, THEY HAVE TO HAVE THAT UP TO TWO YEARS, RIGHT? MY THOUGHT WAS WITHIN THAT 12 MONTHS, THEY'VE GOT TO BEGIN BUILDING THAT PROPERTY.

SO IT CAN'T SIT THERE OVER A YEAR BEING DEMOLISHED.

THEY HAVE TO START THE CONSTRUCTION, THEN THEY HAVE ONE YEAR TO COMPLETE THAT CONSTRUCTION.

AND, UH, PART OF OUR DISCUSSIONS EARLIER WE WERE CONCERNED WHAT IF THERE'S SOMETHING WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THEY'RE GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES TRYING TO, BECAUSE SOMETIMES INSURANCE COMPANIES WOULD DRAG THEIR FEET ON, UH, THEIR CUSTOMERS BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANNA PAY OUT OR THEY'RE, THEY'RE INVESTIGATING WHERE THERE'S ARSON OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

SO IT, FOR ME, I'M WANTING TO WORK WITH OUR RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY TO, AND SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WE WANT THEM HERE AND WE WANT THEM TO STAY HERE AND WE WANT TO DO WHAT WE CAN DO TO KEEP THEM HERE.

MS. BROOKS, UM, I GUESS I NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TIME PERIOD IN WHICH YOU'RE THINKING THEY SHOULD HAVE TO BUILD, BECAUSE I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT, UH, PROPERTY IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S SET FOR FOUR YEARS WITHOUT BEING TOUCHED AND I WOULDN'T LIKE TO SEE THAT IN ANYONE'S NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, IT'S A NUISANCE.

SO I'M THINKING THAT WE GO WITH THE 12 MONTHS TO START RECONSTRUCTION AND HAVE UP TO, UP TO 24 MONTHS WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING AN EXTENSION BECAUSE IF WE SAY AN ADDITIONAL 12 MONTHS AND THEY CAN GO TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR AN EXTENSION, THAT TIME DOES CONTINUE TO EXTEND AND EXTEND AND EXTEND.

SO WE NEED A A CUTOFF TIME.

YEAH, A HARD CUTOFF TIME WHERE THAT PROPERTY SHOULD BE, UH, RE RECONSTRUCTED.

SO IF YOU WANNA SAY A YEAR, LET'S SAY START RECONSTRUCTION WITHIN 12 MONTHS AND COMPLETE WITHIN 24 MONTHS, IF YOU WANNA GIVE ANOTHER YEAR OR TWO.

IF THEY DON'T START FOR 12 MONTHS AND YOU WANT A YEAR ON TOP OF THAT, NO FOR THEM TWO, NO ONE YEAR FROM THE START, RIGHT? SO LET'S SAY THE EVENT OCCURS JANUARY TODAY, JANUARY 1ST, AND THEY START CONSTRUCTION, THEY'RE ABLE TO GET EVERYTHING IN PLACE AND THEY'RE STARTING CONSTRUCTION APRIL 1ST.

BUT WHAT IF THEY DON'T START FOR THAT WHOLE 12 MONTHS? BUT IF THEY, BUT IF FOR SOME REASON THEY CAN'T START BUT THEY HAVE 12, THEY STILL GET THE 12, THE 12 MONTHS.

BUT IF THEY START, ONCE THEY APPLY GET, UM, PER BUILDING, ONCE IT STARTS, THEY HAVE 12 MONTHS TO COMPLETE.

SO THAT COULD BE 18 MONTHS, IT COULD BE 2012 MONTHS.

YOU KNOW, COULD IT ALL HAPPENED? CAN IT BE 24 MONTHS AND IT COULD BE, IT COULD BE 24 MONTHS.

SO THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S MY POINT.

LET'S THAT YOU HARD CUT OFF THAT HARD CUT OFF THAT IT HAS TO BE COMPLETED WITH ATTORNEY.

YEAH, I'M GOOD WITH THAT.

MS. DUBER, I THINK A HARD STOP DATE IS REALLY KIND OF NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA BE COMING TO SEE MR. BREWER ABOUT EXTENSIONS AND IF WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS STALLING, HE'S AN INTELLIGENT ENOUGH MAN

[01:00:01]

TO KNOW NO, YOU'RE NOT GETTING ANOTHER EXTENSION.

YOU'VE GOT TILL THIS DATE TO FINISH.

SO PUTTING A HARD DATE IN THERE COULD ACTUALLY PUT HARDSHIP ON A PERSON.

BUT IF YOU ARE PUTTING A HARD DATE IN THERE, THEN YOU'VE TAKEN HIS ABILITY TO HELP THAT CITIZEN GET COME TO A CONCLUSION, A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION FOR HIM.

SO I'M ALL FOR LETTING MR. BREWER HANDLE THE EXTENSIONS, BUT WITH NO HARD DATE, MOST PEOPLE ARE GONNA BE TRYING TO GET BACK IN THEIR HOUSE BECAUSE THEIR LIFE IS TURNED UPSIDE DOWN.

THEY GET TIRED OF LIVING IN A MOTEL OR WITH THEIR GRANDMOTHER.

SO I THINK MOST PEOPLE ARE GONNA TRY TO GET IT DONE AS EXPEDIENTLY AS POSSIBLE, BUT I DON'T THINK A HARD DATE WOULD REALLY BE FAIR TO HIM WHEN MR. BREWER HAS THE ABILITY TO PROD 'EM ALONG AND TELL 'EM TO HURRY UP.

'CAUSE I'M NOT GIVING YOU ANOTHER EXTENSION.

SO, SO MR. DEBERRY, WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU TO SAY IS THAT YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTING WITHIN 12 MONTHS AND THEN TIMEFRAME EXTENDED OR WHATEVER FOR GOOD CAUSE OR LEAVE THAT LANGUAGE OUT.

AND JUST LET MR. BREWER WORK WHERE, BECAUSE HE'S GONNA, HE AND BREWER GONNA HAVE THEIR THUMB ON WHAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE.

THEY'RE GONNA KNOW, AND WITH THE INSPECTION PROCESS DURING CONSTRUCTION, THEY'RE GONNA KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AND, AND WHAT THE TIMEFRAME'S LOOKING LIKE AND ABOUT HOW MUCH MORE TIME THEY OUGHT TO BE USING.

SO I MEAN THAT, THAT PUTS CITY STAFF IN IN THE PICTURE, UH, MONITORING WHAT'S GOING ON.

AND LEMME JUST ALSO, I, I LOVE THIS BRAINSTORMING AND SOMETHING JUST POPPED UP.

IF THEY HIT THAT DATE, I'M NOT SURE WHAT I'D BE ABLE TO DO ANYWAY TO THEM.

RIGHT? IF THEY BUILD AND, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M JUST SAYING AND MAYBE SOME MORE RESEARCH I HAVE TO DO ON THAT, BUT I'M NOT SURE LEGALLY WHAT I CAN DO OTHER THAN JUST LET 'EM KNOW YOU REALLY NEED TO GET THROUGH.

BUT I MEAN, YOU, YOU CAN'T, YOU, YOU CAN'T SAY AT THAT DEADLINE DATE, HEY, YOU CAN'T DO ANYMORE QUIT, DON'T DRIVE ANOTHER NAIL.

DON'T, DON'T TWIST ANOTHER SCREW.

YOU DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY.

OH, JUST SO MS. BROOKS, JUST A SECOND.

MS. SMITH, GO AHEAD.

SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT, WE'VE GOTTA REMEMBER TO THIS 7.6 NOW AND AS Y'ALL HAVE STATED, AS ADMITTED, THIS APPLIES TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME APARTMENT COMPLEX, AN OFFICE BUILDING, A MANUFACTURING FACILITY.

SO THE TIMELINES MAY BE VERY DIFFERENT FOR ALL THOSE THINGS.

OKAY, MS. BROOKS AND I, I THINK THE HARD DEADLINE WAS PROBABLY BROUGHT UP BECAUSE YOU INDICATED THERE'S ANOTHER CITY IN TEXAS PFLUGERVILLE, UH, THAT PUTS THAT HARD DEADLINE.

SO I RECOMMEND THAT YOU KIND OF FOLLOW UP WITH THEM AND SEE HOW ARE THEY ENFORCING THAT AND YOU KNOW IF THAT'S WORKING FOR THEM OR NOT WORKING.

AND IF THEY RECOMMEND THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU NOT EVEN CONSIDER A HARD DEADLINE BASED ON THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH THEIR, UH, REG REGULATION, MR. REVEREND WILL, UM, MS. BROOKS, DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO VOTE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER TONIGHT IF THERE, IF, IF IF SOMETHING CAME TO THE FLOOR? NOT NECESSARILY.

I'M OKAY WITH TAKING THE HARD DATE OFF.

IF YOU WANT TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

BASED ON WHAT WE HEARD FROM CITY ATTORNEY AND STAFF AND OUR FELLOW COMMISSIONER, WE CAN TALK HONOR JUST MR. BERRY.

SO WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE IF THE LANGUAGE WOULD SUGGEST RECONSTRUCTION MUST COMMENCE WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THE DATE OF DESTRUCTION? TIMEFRAME MAY BE EXTENDED FOR GOOD CAUSE DEPENDING ON THE ACTION OF THE DIRECTOR.

PERFECT.

IS THAT LANGUAGE, UH, OKAY.

YOUR STAFF TO LIVE? CALEB, MR. ATTORNEY? I SEE MR. SMITH FEVERISHLY TYPING.

SO HOLD ON, , HOLD ON, HOLD ON A SECOND.

JUST I CAN WORK ON SOMETHING WITH THAT IN EFFECT.

SO YOU'RE SAYING CONSTRUCTION MUST COMMENCE WITHIN 12 MONTHS? THAT 12 MONTHS CAN BE EXTENDED BY THE CITY

[01:05:01]

FOR GOOD CAUSE.

BUT, BUT, UH, YEAH, CONSTRUCTION.

SO, AND THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

SO ARE WE NOW MOVING TOWARD IT, IT HAS TO BE FINALIZED OR THE REBUILD HAS TO BE FINALIZED WITHIN A YEAR YEAR? OR IS THAT STILL PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION? IT HAS TO START RIGHT WITHIN THE 12 MONTHS, UH, WHEN IT'S COMPLETED.

NOW BASED ON TRYING TO WORK WITH EVERYBODY, THEN THAT'S GONNA BE PUT OVER TO, TO THE DIRECTOR TO DECIDE WHETHER HE GETS EXTENSIONS OR NOT.

BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR AND I MAY BE THE ONLY ONE CONFUSING THE ROOM.

I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR.

SO, BASICALLY WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT, UH, RECONSTRUCTION MUST COMMENCE WITHIN 12 MONTHS.

HOWEVER, THAT TIMEFRAME FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN CAN BE EXTENDED BY STAFF.

UH, INITIALLY WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT ONCE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS, IT ALSO WOULD HAVE TO BE COMPLETED A YEAR LATER.

UH, BUT ALSO THE STAFF COULD REVIEW IT AND IF AN EXTENSION WAS REQUESTED, THAT COULD BE EXTENDED FOR GOOD CALL SHOWN.

SO ARE WE TAKING OUT THE COMPLETION DATE WITH GOOD CALL SHOWN? AND WE'RE JUST SIMPLY SAYING THAT RECONSTRUCTION HAS TO COMMIT WITH 12 MONTHS.

ARE ARE YOU, ARE YOU STRIKING THE COMPLETION, UH, LANGUAGE FROM YOUR RECOMMENDATION? I WAS JUST TRYING TO WORK WHERE EVERYBODY FELT COMFORTABLE THAT WE WERE MAKING THE RIGHT DECISION FOR THE CITY.

SO, OKAY.

MR. BERRY WAS CONCERNED WAS IF WE PUT A HARD DATE, UM, MY INITIAL RECOMMENDATION WAS THEY HAVE 12 MONTHS TO COMMENCE.

ONCE COMMENCEMENT STARTS, THEY HAVE 12 MONTHS TO COMPLETE BILL.

TIMEFRAME COULD BE EXTENDED WITH GOOD CAUSE BASED ON, OKAY.

THAT WAS MY, SO IN EITHER SCENARIO, WHETHER IT IS THE TIME TO GET STARTED WITH RECONSTRUCTION OR COMPLETE AS LONG, AS LONG AS IT'S GOOD CAUSE SHOWN AND IT'S TAKEN TO THE STAFF, THAT'S A DECISION THE STAFF CAN MAKE.

IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE HEARING.

BUT MS. BROOKS MM-HMM.

CONCERNED THAT'S WHAT, YEAH.

WELL, I SAID, LET ME GO BACK.

COMMENCE WITHIN 12 MONTHS.

MM-HMM.

ONCE COMMENCE 12 MONTHS TO COMPLETE.

IF THERE'S A NEED TO, THEY CAN'T GET IT COMPLETED, THEN THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO TIMEFRAME EXTENSION BY GOING TO THE DIRECTOR.

BUT MS. BROOKS CONCERN WAS, I DON'T WANT TO SEE SOMETHING SITTING OUT THERE FOR FOUR YEARS NOT BEING COMPLETED.

MR. BELL, YOU HAVE YOUR LIGHT ON.

AND THEN MS. CAESAR, YOU HAVE YOUR LIGHT ON.

AND EVEN THOUGH MS. BROOKS, YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR LIGHT ON, I KNOW, I, I KNOW YOU GONNA WANNA SAY SOMETHING.

SO, MR. BELL, UH, OKAY.

MS. CAESAR AND THEN MS. BROOKS, UH, MY QUESTION IS FOR THE STAFF, DOES THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PERMITTING PROCESS CONTROL THE CADENCE AND LENGTH OF CONSTRUCTION ALREADY? CURRENT BUILDING PERMITTING PROCESS HAS A SIX MONTHS WINDOW FROM THE LAST TIME THEY REQUESTED AN INSPECTION.

YOU OBTAIN YOUR BUILDING PERMIT.

HERE YOU GOT DIFFERENT PHASE OF INSPECTION THAT THEY CALLED FOR A SLAP FOUNDATION THAT WILL THEN REACTIVATE ANOTHER SIX MONTH PERIOD.

IF HE GAVE NO CALL WITHIN THAT POINT, IF IT REACHED THAT SIX MONTH PERMIT, THEN THAT, THAT SIX MONTH TIME PERIOD, THAT PERMIT WILL EXPIRE.

IF HE GETS IN ON THAT FIFTH MONTH, 20TH DAY REQUESTS AN INSPECTION, HIS CLOCK WILL START ANOTHER SIX MONTHS.

SO THEY COULD FEASIBLY DRAG IT OUT LONGER THAN 12 MONTHS IF THEY OH YES.

IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO.

BECAUSE I DON'T SEE IT , FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, WE DID.

THANK YOU, MR. CESAR.

GOOD POINT.

MR. BELL.

UH, COMMISSIONER BELL, GOOD POINT.

I'M, UM, IN AGREEMENT, I CANNOT SEE THIS BEING DRUG OUT FOR THREE, FOUR YEARS, THAT A HEART DATE NEEDS TO BE PLACED WITH STAFF BEING IN A POSITION TO GRANT EXTENSIONS AS WARRANTED.

SO I LIKE THE IDEA OF COMMENCING WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ONE YEAR TWO COMPLETE WITH STAFF BEING ABLE TO GRANT EXTENSIONS AS WARRANTED.

I, I DON'T SEE IT FOR ME PERSONALLY.

ANY OTHER WAY, BROOKS, DID WE JUST GO BACKWARDS? I THOUGHT WE WERE SAYING COMMENCE WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THE DATE OF DESTRUCTION WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT VILLE HAD TO, TO EXTEND THROUGH STAFF? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING? MM-HMM.

, WE KIND OF DID GO BACKWARD

[01:10:01]

I, I AGREED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND I LIKE THAT, THAT LANGUAGE.

OH, GOT IT.

I DID NOT AGREE AND DON'T AGREE WITH NO NOTHING, NO STOP GAPS IN THERE AT ALL.

SO LET ME, LET ME TRY, I'M GONNA TAKE A STAB AT THIS.

SO HERE'S WHY I THINK AT LEAST THE MAJORITY IS RECONSTRUCTION MUST COMMENCE WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THE DATE OF DESTRUCTION.

BUT I THINK WE'VE ALSO INSERTED IN THERE THAT STAFF WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONSIDER ANY REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS TO THAT PROVISION.

AND THEN ONCE RECONSTRUCTION COMMENCE TO MR. RENELL'S POINT, 'CAUSE IT MAY NOT TAKE 12 MONTHS, THEY MAY START AFTER FOUR MONTHS OR SIX MONTHS OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

BUT ONCE RECONSTRUCTION COMMENCES, THEN IT MUST BE FINALIZED OR COMPLETE WITHIN 12 MONTHS.

BUT AGAIN, STAFF WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY, IF THEY SAY WE NEED AN EXTENSION TO THAT, THE STAFF WOULD'VE THE ABILITY TO CONSIDER THAT AS WELL.

I, UH, NOW I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

I KNOW MS. BROOKS THREW IN POSSIBLY EXTENDING ONE YEAR TO 24 MONTHS, BUT RIGHT NOW, I THINK WE'RE DISCUSSING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE YEAR TO COMPLETE TO 24 MONTHS TO COMPLETE.

BUT BASICALLY EITHER SCENARIO, STAFF HAS THE ABILITY TO CONSIDER EXTENSIONS IF ASKED FOR BY THE APPLICANT.

SO I, I THINK I GOT IT RIGHT, BUT IF I GOT IT WRONG, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

SO IS THAT, AND MR. RAVEN, NOW, SINCE YOU'RE THE ONE WHO MADE THE RECOMMENDATION, DID I ACCURATELY RESTATE KIND OF WHERE WE ARE? I THINK SO.

SO IT'S CLEAR AS MUD.

SO, WONDERFUL.

ALRIGHT, SO UNDERSTANDING THAT, SO MR. RNE, ARE YOU NOW PREPARED? AND I, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE, I WANNA MAKE SURE EVERY COMMISSIONER HAS HAD OPPORTUNITY TO GET ANY FINAL, UH, THOUGHTS OR ANY FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO LEMME START WITH MR. BERRY.

MR. BERRY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD? I THINK AT THIS TIME WE OUGHT TO LET STAFF TAKE THIS RECOMMENDATION, WRITE IT UP WITH CALEB'S ASSISTANCE IN LEGAL FORM AND BRING IT BACK TO US LATER AND LET US VOTE ON IT OR TWEAK IT A LITTLE BIT THEN.

BUT I THINK WE'VE GIVEN GOOD GUIDANCE AS TO WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO HEAD WITH THIS THING.

THAT'S WHERE I'M AT RIGHT NOW.

MS. BROOKS, WHAT DO YOU THINK? I AGREE BECAUSE STAFF WILL THEN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK INTO IF IT'S EVEN PHYSICAL FEASIBLE OR PRACTICAL, WHAT PFLUGERVILLE IS DOING WITH A SIX TO 12 MONTH, UH, FINALIZATION ON CONSTRUC RECONSTRUCTION.

MR. AVOW, WHAT DO YOU THINK? I'M READY TO MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT.

THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHERE I SIT.

MS. CAESAR, WHAT DO YOU THINK? READY TO MAKE A DECISION TO MAKE? OKAY, MR. BELL, WHAT DO YOU THINK? I, I CAN GO EITHER WAY, HOWEVER Y'ALL WANT TO DO IT.

WELL, HOW DO I FEEL? UH, I I BELIEVE, UH, I THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH NOW.

I MEAN, I STILL THINK THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION BETWEEN A YEAR AND 24 MONTHS, BUT IF WE CAN RECTIFY THAT, I'M READY TO VOTE TONIGHT.

SO I'LL JUST MAKE A COMMENT.

WE CAN COME BACK NEXT TIME WITH A DRAFT AMENDMENT.

WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT IS WE'RE, WE'RE NOT VOTING ON THE TEXT AMENDMENT, RIGHT? ALL YOU'RE DOING IS SAYING, I WANT THERE TO BE A TEXT AMENDMENT.

SO KIND OF GOING BACK TO WHAT, WHAT COMMISSIONER DEBERRY WAS SAYING, WHAT WE'RE, IF Y'ALL DECIDE TO THAT YOU WANT TO AMEND 7.6, WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS AN OFFICIAL TEXT CHANGE AMENDMENT PROCESS IS GONNA BE INITIATED WITH PROPER ADVERTISEMENTS.

TYPICALLY, WHEN WE DO A TEXT CHANGE AMENDMENT RIGHT, WE WILL COME TO YOU WITH A DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT MY OFFICE IS DRAFTED.

UM, THAT CAN BE TWEAKED, RIGHT? IF YOU, IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT WAS PRESENTED, YOU CAN TWEAK THAT, UH, IN YOUR MOTION IF YOU DECIDE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE COUNCIL.

BUT ALL WE'RE DOING TONIGHT IS EITHER NO ACTION.

UH, WE ARE, WE DO WANT TO AMEND 7.6 NOW THAT Y'ALL HAVE HAD A DISCUSSION, STAFF AND MY MYSELF KIND OF KNOW WHAT Y'ALL WANT TO DO.

WHERE I THINK WE'RE TO THE POINT WHERE I COULD PROBABLY COME BACK, UH, WITH SOMETHING, WORKING WITH STAFF TO MAKE SURE WHAT YOU'VE ASKED FOR IS FEASIBLE.

IF IT'S NOT FEASIBLE, RIGHT? WE'LL COME BACK NEXT TIME AND, AND TELL YOU WHY THAT'S NOT FEASIBLE.

UM, OR I FORGOT THE OPTIONS.

DO NOTHING, AMEND IT, UM, OR COME BACK FOR MORE DISCUSSION.

RIGHT? AND AN AMENDINGS GOING TO BE MORE DISCUSSION IN AND OF ITSELF.

UM, SO RIGHT, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY AMENDING ANYTHING TONIGHT.

SO THE SPECIFICS DON'T HAVE TO BE THERE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT.

UM,

[01:15:01]

WE CAN TWEAK THAT IF YOU NEED TO.

STAFF AND MYSELF CAN LOOK AT THAT AND BE WHAT'S ACTUALLY FEASIBLE, UM, AND KIND OF EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING ON.

UM, IF Y'ALL DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN AMENDMENT, WHICH THAT'S WHAT IT'S SIGNED FOR.

OKAY? SO UNDERSTANDING EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID, MS. SMITH, A MA COMMENT? YES, SIR.

MS. BLUE, I, I DO NEED TO SHARE WITH YOU WHEN YOUR NEXT MEETING IS.

YOU HAVE DECIDED THAT YOU'RE STILL ON YOUR SUMMER SCHEDULE AND YOUR NEXT MEETING IS ACTUALLY ONE MEETING IN AUGUST, WHICH WILL BE AUGUST THE 20TH.

BUT I ACTUALLY HAVE A NEED FOR YOU TO COME BACK AT YOUR FIRST MEETING IF I CAN GET A QUORUM.

I HAVE A PRELIMINARY PLA THAT'S ON A TIME LIMIT AND I ALSO MAY HAVE A-A-S-U-P REQUEST.

SO BASICALLY MR. BREWER WANTS US TO COME BACK ON WHAT? AUGUST THE SIXTH? AUGUST THE SIXTH.

THAT'S, THAT'S THE FIRST TUESDAY.

OH, I'M SORRY.

YOU MEET THE SECOND TUESDAY, RIGHT? SO YOU, YOU WANT US TO COME BACK ON THE 13TH? THE 13TH? I'M SORRY.

OKAY, COMMISSIONER, JUST ABOUT SHOW OF HANDS, WHO CAN MAKE IT ON AUGUST 13TH? ALRIGHT, MR. BREW.

YOU GOT IT.

AS HAVE UNANIMOUSLY MR. BROOKS.

SO WITH THAT PIECE OF BUSINESS BEING DONE AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT MR. SMITH JUST SAID, IS THERE A MOTION, BECAUSE I THINK REGARDLESS OF THE VERBIAGE OR HOW IT'S GONNA SHAKE OUT, I THINK EVERYBODY AGREES THAT WE WANT TO AMEND 7.6.

SO IS THERE A MOTION, UH, TO UH, BASICALLY INSTRUCT STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS OF AMENDING SECTION 7.6? IS THERE A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION.

I'D LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT WE, UM, AMEND, UH, SECTION 7.6 AND THAT STAFF WOULD TAKE THE, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS OF, OF THIS COMMISSION, UH, INTO CONSIDERATION AND COME BACK TO US WITH A, UH, THE CORRECT, THE PROPER VERBIAGE.

SECOND.

OKAY, I'M GONNA GET A SECOND TO MS. BROOKS.

SO IT'LL BE MOVED BY MR. NER, SECONDED BY MS. BROOKS.

ANY UNREADINESS? OKAY.

HEARING AND SEEING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR? PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY AYE.

AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED TO SAY NAY.

AYE.

WHO? I MEAN, I'M SORRY.

YOU SEE, I THOUGHT I WAS GONNA MAKE IT THROUGH A MEETING.

I ALMOST DID IT.

I ALL, I GOT, I WAS THIS CLOSE.

I NEED SAY BROOKS, BUT YOU SAID MISS.

YEAH, WELL, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? BUT YOU KNOW, LISA, IT WASN'T YOU THIS TIME.

IT WAS HIM.

YES, YES, YES SIR.

I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION.

SO WE'RE SAYING PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST THE 13TH, YOU READY FOR US TO ADVERTISE IT? YES.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GONNA GET THAT VERBIAGE WELL IN ADVANCE OF THAT MEETING IN CASE AS WE READ IT, WE DO HAVE SOME INPUT.

INPUT.

THERE WILL BE A DRAFT ORDINANCE, UM, IN THE PACKET.

I DON'T KNOW THE TIMELINES FOR WHEN ALL THAT'S DUE, BUT WHENEVER YOU RECEIVE YOUR PACKET, THERE WILL BE A DRAFT ORDINANCE IN THERE.

AND THE ONLY REASON I'M SAYING THAT IS BECAUSE YOU COULD TELL THAT THERE'S STILL, THERE'S SOME LITTLE NUANCES THAT WE WERE NOT AGREEING AND THEN TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING PEOPLE BACK AND WE HAVEN'T WORKED OUT THOSE LITTLE NUANCES, IT'S WASTING AND IT'D BE WASTING THE PEOPLE'S TIME AS WELL AS OURS.

SO IF WE ADVERTISE THAT WE'RE AMENDING 7.6, WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE EVERY SINGLE SPECIFIC DOWN.

OKAY? SO IF YOU DECIDE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL TO AMEND 7.6, YOU DON'T LIKE THE DRAFT ORDINANCE? WELL, IT'S JUST A DRAFT ORDINANCE WE CAN AMEND IN OUR MOTION.

WHAT TO DO TO CHANGE THAT DRAFT LANGUAGE.

SO YOU THEORETICALLY COULD ADVERTISE FOR THE NEXT MEETING, HAVE THAT DRAFT ORDINANCE ALSO MODIFY THAT DRAFT ORDINANCE AND STILL SEND UP COUNSEL ALL IN ONE MEETING.

IF THAT'S WHAT Y'ALL DEEM NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER, ANYTHING ELSE? WILL WE STILL BE HAVING THE MEETING BEFORE TUESDAY? OR IS THIS 13TH TO TAKE ? YES.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 13TH AND THE 27TH? YES.

AS AN AGENDA ITEM, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YEAH.

NOW YOUR REGULATIONS MANDATE YOU TO HAVE ONE MEETING.

NOW WHAT WE'VE PRACTICED BEFORE, IF YOU WANTED TO IN ADVANCE COUNCIL A MEETING, Y'ALL HAVE TAKEN A MOTION AND THAT'S WHEN Y'ALL, UH, ESTABLISH YOUR SUMMER SCHEDULE.

SO I GUESS I WAS SAYING ON THE 13TH, IF YOU FIND OUT YOU DON'T WANT MEET ON THE 27TH, DO YOU WANT US TO PUT AN AGENDA ITEM FOR YOU? DISCUSS THAT SURE.

OR BESTA.

DO THEY, YOU GOT ANY CASES PENDING? I DON'T KNOW YET.

YES, I WOULD JUST SAY INCLUDE IT AND THEN WE CAN MAKE A DECISION BASED ON WHETHER WE NEED TO COME OR NOT.

NO, I'M FINE WITH THAT.

AS AN AGENDA ITEM.

[01:20:02]

BUT NOW KEEP IN MIND, LET'S, LET'S JUST MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON THIS.

UH, IF MS. STRO, MR. BREWER, IF THEY HAVE SOMETHING FOR US ON THE 27TH, THEN WE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CANCEL IF THEY HAVE SOMETHING ON THE 27TH.

BUT IF THEY TELL US ON THE 13TH WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING SET FOR THE 27TH, THEN WE'LL CONSIDER IT.

AND IF WE WANT TO CANCEL AT THAT TIME, WE CAN, BUT IF THEY HAVE SOMETHING, THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE MEETING.

SO WITHOUT IT BEING AN AGENDA ITEM YEAH, YEAH.

WITHOUT IT BEING AN AGENDA ITEM, WE CAN VOTE ON IT ON THE 13TH THAT, UH, WE CAN COUNCIL THAT MEETING.

WE'RE GONNA PUT AN AGENDA ITEM.

THEY'RE GONNA PUT IT ON THERE REGARDLESS.

BUT, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT IF FOR WHATEVER REASON SOMETHING COMES UP AND THEY NEED US HERE ON THE 27TH YES.

THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE MEETING.

BUT IF THEY, IF THEY TELL US, OH, EVERYTHING'S CLEAR ON THE 27TH, THEN WE'LL VOTE ON IT AND WE'LL CANCEL THAT MEETING.

MS. SMITH AND I WILL JUST COMMENT, THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AN OFFICIAL VOTE.

IF THERE'S NOTHING TO MEET ABOUT YOU AS THE CHAIRMAN CAN CANCEL THE MEETING BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING, YOU KNOW, YOU ALL TRY GIMME SOME EXTRA AUTHORITY .

YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT.

IF THERE'S NOTHING THAT ENDS UP BEING ON THE SECOND MEETING'S AGENDA, IT'S JUST BY DEFAULT CANCELED AND YOU CAN JUST DO THAT.

WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE AN ITEM OKAY.

TO THE OFFICIAL ACT OF THE WHOLE COMMISSION TO CANCEL A MEETING WHEN THERE'S NOTHING TO MEET ABOUT.

AND THAT'S FAIR.

SO, SO IF WE HAVE SOMETHING, WE'LL HAVE IT, WE'LL MEET ON THE 27TH.

IF WE DON'T, THEN WE WON'T.

IS THAT FAIR? YES.

OUR AGENDA IS CITIZEN APPEARANCES.

ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, ANYTHING ELSE? YES SIR.

I THANK YOU MR. REV.

NOW, 'CAUSE ONE THING WE DID, WE, WE GOT INTO OUR DISCUSSION ABOUT 7.6, UH, BUT WE WANT TO BE COMPLIANT WITH OUR AGENDA.

AND ITEM C ON

[C. CITIZEN APPEARANCES The Planning and Zoning Commission invites citizens to address the Commissioners on any topic not already scheduled for Public Hearing. Citizens wishing to speak should complete a "Citizen Comment Card" and return it to the table prior to the meeting. In accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, the Planning and Zoning Commission cannot take action on items not listed on the agenda. However, your concerns may be addressed by City Staff, placed on a future agenda, or responded to by some other course. Anyone desiring to speak on an item scheduled for a Public Hearing is requested to hold their comments until the Public Hearing on that item]

UH, SO CITIZEN APPEARANCES ALLOW US TO HEAR FROM REPRESENTATIVES AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, UH, ON ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA.

SO IF THERE'S ANY, UH, CITIZEN WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY ITEM THAT WAS NOT ON THE AGENDA, IF YOU'LL COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME.

UH, YOU'LL HAVE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

AND JUST GIVE ME AN OPPORTUNITY JUST FOR A SECOND TO GET MY PHONE TOGETHER.

MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE YOU BEGIN, UH, COULD YOU STATE THE RULES AND AS WELL AS TO HAVE THEM FILL OUT THE FORMS? YES.

SO BASICALLY WITH, SINCE APPEARING, UH, MA'AM, RIGHT NOW WHAT YOU'VE BEING GIVEN IS A COMMENT CARD.

HERE'S WHAT WE'RE NOT GONNA MAKE YOU FILL IT OUT RIGHT NOW, BUT WHAT, WHAT, I JUST NEED A COMMITMENT FROM YOU.

UH, AFTER YOU SPEAK, IF YOU WILL FILL OUT THAT COMMITMENT CARD, GIVE IT BACK TO MR. CARROLL, UH, WHO HAS HIS HAND UP AT THE FRONT DOOR BECAUSE WE LIKE TO KEEP TRACK.

EVEN THOUGH THIS MEETING IS BEING RECORDED, WE'D LIKE TO ALSO HAVE A WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION OF WHO SPEAKS.

SO AGAIN, UH, THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY.

UH, IF YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

I'M TRACY NELSON, I'M A RESIDENT WITH DESOTO.

OH, I'M TRACY NELSON AND I'M A RESIDENT OF DESOTO.

AND I'M JUST HERE, WE WERE HERE LAST TIME.

I'M JUST, UM, STATING FOR THE RECORD AGAIN FOR THE COMMUNITY.

THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT I REPRESENT THAT WE ARE OPPOSING THE VESPER PROPOSAL.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S, UM, NOT A FORMAL PROPOSAL YET, BUT UNTIL THERE IS A NO, WE, WE WILL BE HERE.

SO I'M JUST DEPOSING THAT TONIGHT.

UM, AND I HAD A QUESTION, CAN I, CAN, CAN I GET AN ANSWER? THIS IS JUST YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS US, BUT WE REALLY CAN'T.

OH YEAH.

IF YOU WANNA STATE SOMETHING FOR THE RECORD, YOU CAN, BUT WE CAN'T ENGAGE IN QUESTION AND ANSWER.

YEAH, IT WAS A QUESTION ON THE PERMIT PROCESS THAT I COULDN'T FIND IN YOUR PRESENTATION.

BUT THAT'S IT.

I JUST WANT TO, UH, I'M REPRESENTING THE, THE COMMUNITY AND THE, AND THE FOLKS WHO WERE HERE LAST TIME TO JUST REITERATE THAT WE ARE TOTALLY OPPOSED, UH, TO THE VESPER PROPOSAL.

THE PROJECT FOR THE, UH, LITHIUM BATTERY.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MA'AM.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

AND IF YOU WOULD, UH, IF YOU'LL GIVE YOU A COMMENT CARD TO MR. CARROLL.

THANK YOU MA'AM.

THAT'S JUST A QUESTION FOR THE RECORD AND AT SOME POINT MAYBE WE CAN TALK TO SOMEBODY OFF THE RECORD TO TRY AND FIND OUT, UH, WHAT THAT'S ABOUT.

IS THERE ANY OTHER, UH, MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME TO SPEAK AND ADDRESS US ON ANY ITEM THAT WAS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA? UH, MA'AM, THANK YOU FOR COMING FORWARD.

UH, I'LL ASK YOU THE SAME THING IF, IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY FILLED OUT A COMMENT CARD, IF YOU WOULD, BEFORE YOU LEAVE, FILL OUT ONE MR. CARROLL, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY RESIDENCE.

YOU GOT THREE MINUTES? ROBIN FME? YES MA'AM.

WON'T TAKE THREE MINUTES TONIGHT, BUT JUST TO PIGGYBACK ON WHAT SHE WAS, UM, REFERRING TO WITH REFERENCE TO THE LOCATION THAT THEY ARE, THAT IS POSSIBLY BEING CONSIDERED FOR THIS, UH, STORAGE FACILITY, IF AT SOME POINT THE RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA WILL BE NOTIFIED OF THIS SITUATION, HOW FAR AND HOW WIDE WILL THOSE NOTICES GO? AND UM, WILL IT JUST BE NOTIFIED TO THEM IN THAT AREA? SO

[01:25:01]

BECAUSE WE REALLY ARE INTERESTED IN JUST MAKING SURE THAT THE CITY UNDERSTANDS THAT THE RESIDENTS ARE WILLING TO DO WHATEVER WORK IS NECESSARY TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE KNOWS SO THAT IT'S A FAIR OPPORTUNITY FOR US AS WELL.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WALKING THE NEIGHBORHOODS, TALKING TO PEOPLE WHEREVER WE CAN.

WE JUST NEED TO BE INFORMED ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS AND UNDERSTANDING HOW THOSE PARTICULAR RESIDENTS WILL BE NOTIFIED IS SOMETHING THAT WILL MAKE US MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE SO THAT WHEN WE'RE SHARING, WE'RE SHARING GOOD INFORMATION.

SO THANK YOU.

YES MA'AM.

ALRIGHT, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE, UH, WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD, UH, DURING THIS CITIZEN APPEARANCE PORTION OF OUR AGENDA? ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT, I'M LOOKING AROUND ONE LAST TIME.

ALRIGHT, HEARING AND SEEING NONE.

UH, WE'LL TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSE OUR CITIZEN APPEARANCES, UH, STAFF.

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE, UH, THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER OR BE NOTIFIED OF? YES, THERE IS GOING TO BE ETHICS TRAINING THAT IS GOING TO BE THERE NEXT MONDAY HERE IN THE, IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 6:00 PM THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT VIRTUAL, BUT YOU HAVE TO BE AT THAT COMPUTER THE WHOLE TIME FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO, UH, GET THE CERTIFICATION THAT YOU ATTENDED.

BUT THERE IS GOING TO BE THAT ETHICS TRAINING AT 6:00 PM HERE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS NEXT MONDAY, THE 29TH OF JULY, 2024.

AND IT'S MANDATORY FOR ALL COMMISSIONS, COMMISSIONERS, AND BOARD MEMBERS, MR. RAVENELL.

AND IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO MAKE THAT EITHER WAY, UM, HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO HANDLE IT? I DO BELIEVE THERE IS A WAY TO DO IT, BUT WE HAVE TO DISCUSS IT WITH THE CITY SECRETARY.