Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

As we come before you today to discuss important matters, we ask for your guidance and wisdom. You are the source of all knowledge and understanding. Therefore, we seek your direction in our decision making process. Father, help us to listen attentively to one another with open hearts and minds. [snorts] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Honor the Texas flag. I pledge algiance to the Texas. One state under God, one and indivisible. We have along with this is our city attorney and our city manager and head of our planning department. We'll start with citizen comments, but I do want um everybody to be aware that if you're going to speak on on something in particular, you may wait uh for the public hearing is on that particular item. U rather than speaking multiple times, we're trying in the in the in the essence of time, uh we'd like to just keep everybody at one Everybody else

um do you have a question? Yes. Is there a difference in time depending? I think it's five minutes. If it's the same then yeah it's five minutes but only one time per person. Okay. No worries. Unless it's on a different different agenda item. Okay. Thank you. All right. Um, so we will open a public hearing at 6:02 p.m. request to reszone property from residential single family R1 to business at 1295 Boulevard. If there is any citizen comments, [snorts] do you want to speak on this? Are you

okay? No citizen comment at this time. I will close the public hearing at 6:02 p.m. on November the 5th. And moving to old business, consideration and action to approve regular meeting minutes for the October 1st, 2025 meeting. If y'all will entertain a motion for approval or not. Second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? I

motion carries. Consideration and action to approve special meeting minutes for the October 14th, 2025 meeting. And uh there's any citizen comments being said, I'll entertain a motion. This is I make a motion to approve. Do you want to read it? Yeah. Okay. Second.

Okay. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Motion carries. Moving to new business. Consideration and action on an amendment to the future L land use plan map for an area in the general vicinity of the intersection of Third Street, business loop 181 North and Hospital Boulevard. At this time I can allow you want to go ahead and speak to this and then we'll allow citizen comments after that.

Yes. Um as you know we had um to amend the land use plan because a zoning was done a zoning change was done in the previous meeting. So we have um a memo and the maps to present for the change and John would you like to explain exactly what's on our memo and the changes we're making on the plan. Sorry. Yeah. So, so basically anytime you reszone property, it needs to be in conformance with uh the city's adopted future land use plan. And so, since we've had a couple of zonings, one last time and then the one that's on tonight's meeting, um that are in an area where the future land use plan shows it as single family or residential. uh but there are reszoning to either commercial or business. Um this item will basically change the future land use on three properties in that area uh to uh in one case from civic institutional to commercial and in the other cases from single family residential to commercial. Um I do want to clarify that the future land use designations are different than a zoning classification. So, uh, what in your future land use plan is called commercial retail doesn't necessarily correspond to just the commercial district and zoning. It could be the commercial district or your business district. And so, they're not a onetoone relationship with those two. Uh, but basically what this would do is amend your future land use map uh to make those three properties um, designate them as commercial. that will allow those reszonings to a one of the types of commercial or retail reszoning categories.

At this moment, if there's any citizens comments or you could sit there and we're all um actually I have some questions in regard

Oh, sorry. Yes, I'm Tiffany Dawson. I live at 1909 Creek Street, so near the general vicinity area mentioned. Um, and I cannot find in the city ordinances where it says or even in um a law because I've looked at other states of where you can amend after zoning. I understand they are different. I'm [snorts] trying to understand how it is legal to do the amendment which I cannot find after the resoning because as far as I have confirmed is that this gets presented it is still voted upon. So how could we have reszoned something that could an amendment could still not be passed? Okay, I'm going to defer to [clears throat]

So, this is just a recommending body and so even if they recommend for it not to be approved, the city council will undoubtedly approve it because they're the ones who approve the zoning. The zoning must conform to the plan. So, this is a director from the city council back to the plan zoning commission to send forth this amendment. That's the way it is inter. So, you can reszone something saying that I'm going to amend it in the future. Yes. So, the Yes, you can because right now uh well, I'll get you get your legal opinion in a second, but but but understand that we have a comprehensive plan process already moving.

That's right. Zoning is happens organically though. It doesn't happen just when when the comprehensive plans updated. Those comprehensive plans are often updated every 10 years, but they can be amended at any point along the way. Ideally, sure. If you have the opportunity to amend it, amend the plan prior to the the zoning being done. You can. There's nothing that says you you have to. There's nothing that says that it's illegal not to because they're following it right up with that amendment. I mean, you may not like it, but

of course, I don't like it. We know I don't like it. But the fact is I'm trying to find legally how that applies because I looked at and I understand cities are different but I've looked at like so many different cities and when you go to apply for resoning if it is not in accordance with the future land use plan it literally states you have to do the amendment first. Mhm. So that's where so understand too though that the only thing you're going to find when you're looking in other cities or in case law or anything like that are lawsuits that have gone up and been unsuccessful on appeal lawsuits that are moot when they go they're not you're not going to find those. This is a moot point once this amendment is approved.

So there's not going to be litigation that's ever going to go to through a court or to an appellet court once that once it conforms. Okay. So, you're not going to find those instances. So, then why is there a hearing on it? If it's already a mute point and the amendment is for sure going to go through, then what is the point of having a public hearing? It's required to have a public having a public hearing.

Okay. All right. Well, I um am so I can make it clear, I am not in favor of the reasonzoning um for multiple reasons or sorry, the amendment of the future land use plan. I'm also not in favor of the reszoning from residential to business because it is in a civic um um institutional and I do feel that it should remain that way considering it is right next to a park. It is right next to the nursing home and that's why it is in that zone and it's also right next to the EMS and fire station and the veterans home. That's all civic institutional and I really do feel that it should stay that way until citizens are taken into consideration which is part of the future land use plan. Um to be updated from that point forward. Um, and I also don't understand how there's already a business there when it is residential.

Anybody answer why that is? Okay. So, it was a business before because but it was nonconforming. So, when they close that business and they're trying to open up another business, it has to conform. But you have to do a civic institutional which means there could be a business which was the hospital. So there are those things that are listed in those categories of like museum or you know something like I said in those that even the coffee shop was you know was not

in those right so um I don't understand how we are continuing to already have somebody you know vacate the premise before something's even done like how I That's well that's why we're doing what we're doing is we're should have done first. It should have been but it was not it wasn't made aware. We were not made aware of that. So now we are trying to go back and rectify all the misdeeds into a correct format for the city. That's that's what we're trying to do and that's what the council has directed us to try to do. Okay. Well, I do think that it should not be the reason that I

aren't going to do too much, but it's just mostly so like some of the stuff I'll reference. [snorts]

Yes, David Simmons. I'm at 1903 Third Street. Um, this is the stuff I am finding. So, it's not so much the question that what we're saying is right or wrong, but everything I'm reading, this is kind of what's leading me to these conclusions, right? So, respectfully, I do ask that even though this is the plan amendment stage and this is kind of considered a moot point, I really do argue it should still be denied. Uh, I believe this is because council resone the property first. I believe this was out of order, just like Tiffany said. uh I will explain why I believe that I realize you're hearing contrary uh but everything I am reading online everything like I have been a clinical researcher research is what I do robotic [crying] process automation my whole job is looking for errors in code I see errors right um the amendment step is supposed to guide how we grow these are our guiding documents there not to be an after the fact approval of a decision already made because this still needs approval tonight everything I'm reading online says just like Tiffany that comprehensive plans must be first. This is what I've read for Texas, other cities in Texas as well. I did read though that some jurisdictions allow both to be voted on at the same time, but I really could not find that zoning is allow uh is allowed to be first before comprehensive plans. I realize that probably happens. I saw stuff in healthcare all the time that was out of order, but from what I'm reading on the policy level, that's not what it's supposed to be. [laughter] The comprehension plan is supposed to be the policy framework and building [crying] is supposed to be the implementation. I really did a lot more than just a Google search, I promise. But if you just Google what's supposed to be first, a comprehensive plan or the zoning, it always says comprehensive plan. So in Texas local government code 214, the quote is it's zoning regulations must be adopted in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Honestly, it has

been a little jumbled. It hasn't been made clear to me really what we interpreted wrong in these laws, but I think this is the part that's open to interpretation, but the definition of accordance is conformity or agreement. And just for reference, conformities is compliance with standards, [snorts] rules, and laws. So, the phrase in accordance should mean in agreement or compliance with the rules. Our future land use plan, also shown by the city ordinance, has been adopted by city. It is now part of our rules. At the time council reszone this track to business B, the future land use plan still designated it residential. To meet with those definitions, that means the reasonzoning was not in accordance with the plan at the time of adoption. The plan has not been changed or voted on yet. That is tonight and the subsequent council meeting. I realize this is recommendation tonight, but since October 23rd when the reasoning was approved, [snorts] to my knowledge, this hasn't been in violation of that law. And the fix isn't to let let this be in violation for a couple weeks and then amend it. It's by amending the plan first so that when you do reszone, there's zero days of it being in violation. If we want to stop that being so tedious, you only have to amend one city ordinance instead of dealing with this every time there's a reasonzoning. That's what the rules read like to me, our own city ordinances. But if my interpretation is wrong and in accordance is that it doesn't matter whether the plan and zoning align at the time of adoption and only that they eventually align after the fact, then yeah, these hearings really are meaningless. That interpretation assumes approval is inevitable and that denial is never even a real option at this stage. But the law requires hearings because the community is supposed to have a genuine chance to say no. and we for every other meeting showed up fairly enacts all the immediate neighbors. So if alignment can always be fixed later then there's no intent to even consider denial at this stage and be honest with y'all don't normally even consider denial of a plan amendment if zoning's already approved.

I believe this undermines the statute and purpose of public input. Oh no you've got one more minute. Go ahead.

I will skip to the end though. So I'll skip that part. Um honestly this is everything I'm reading online. This is other cities in Texas. I do. I know he the attorney said that there you can't find cases for this. You flip to the back. I found cases for this. I did find more. You know, I felt it was ridiculous to submit seven pages. People don't look at it. You lose people. I've noticed if I talk too much, I lose people. So, I'm trying to be as brief as possible, but everything to me shows this should have been denied a long time ago. We should have been able as a community to deny this at the plan and zoning never should have been applied for. The zoning was applied for. So now I agree like what's the point in stopping the plan amending it because hell it's already approved but everything I'm reading like every research we've also referenced to lawyers are expensive we can't afford it but the lawyers that gave us free input said looks questionable based off city ordinance and we even did get a judge's opinion and they said the same thing we do have non-local attorneys as well that said the same thing.

Thank you. Thank you. If there are any more, I have something. Hi, I'm State. I'm Rachel Draper and um I'm Harris myself and not as a representative of anyone else. But you didn't write on it. You're still going to write an article on it. You're here.

That's correct. Okay. Um so my concern is with the the process of how things occurred um uh related to this item at the last city council meeting. Um so the planning and chair uh planning and zoning chairperson spoke uh on behalf of the committee to relay the decision that was made regarding 1901 Third Street. Um and she stated something about uh committee members having confusion about the amendments which Monica Bise confirmed but there was no other information given about that a clarification on the confusion. If someone did talk to you after or you after or something what was the confusion? Um, [clears throat] this confusion didn't happen out loud during the PNC meeting if unless there was something further that was stated later. Um, and I feel like those concerned uh those concerned members um if they didn't leave a statement or if they did that should have been read aloud during the council meeting because now there's more distrust with the people the so many people that came up there to speak that evening. Um, so I just have a problem with that. Um, was that an accurate representation of what happened during the meeting? What you relate to council? Um, [snorts and clears throat] also, um, during that meeting, which I know is not, uh, specific to tonight, but it's related to the amendment, uh, Miss Bise said that, uh, the staff felt it was in the best, uh, it was best for the city to move forward. But what evidence like you you didn't share any evidence about what Jacob or any anyone else shared? Were there studies? Um what what was used to make that determination other than the staff feels that it's in the best interest to change this to move forward to move forward? That's I I get it. Those sound my great words, but

we we deserve evidence. Um and and we didn't get that. So there's There's a feeling of distrust and yes, I'm going to write about this now. I'm back as Rachel Draper of Wilson County News. I'll be writing about this and sharing codes from the meeting and I hope to accurately accurately reflect what occurs here tonight. Thank you. Also, I don't know if I heard but who's John is

he's our James. Okay. Thank you. John speak to Hey John, you want to speak a little bit about timing on amendments and and plan because I know you you and I had that a pretty spirited debate on on on that on that topic. So in your experience as a planner,

yeah, I mean I think ideally you would do the same amendment. Uh most cities do them as was mentioned at the same time as a zoning amendment. Uh but as Dan mentioned earlier, uh I have seen it done, you know, with the the zoning first. Now, I would say that w with the city council's consideration of that and their direction to amend the plan um and with the public hearing and all of the procedural requirements that went into the resoning. In my mind, that's what makes this different than um if they had, you know, just approved a resoning without consideration of the future language plan. At the same time, I also do want to point out that there are three properties affected by this future landings amendment. Only one of them is the property that was reszoned at the last city council meeting. So, I just want to be clear that the two other properties both are nonconforming. They're already businesses. Uh, and so this is doing it after the fact in that sense. for those those were legal non-conforming uses prior to and this is basically fixing that. You could always say no to those but you would be leaving an illegal non-conforming business um you know that you basically be saying a business couldn't reopen at that location. So if you think a business is appropriate then this future land use map is amendment is necessary for that. I don't know if that answered all your question, Dan.

Yeah. No, that's fine. Thank you. Okay. Um, if there's no more to

So, um, so the city has already decided, we've already got a public hearing on it and the city's already decided to approve this the zoning. The zoning That's correct. And we've already done so and now they've already done the amendment. Basically, we're in the business of doing giving them the amendment now. So, only partially. One property has already been resumed. Okay. As John said, this lane use this amendment, this future lane use applies to more than one property, four properties. So, we're about to give it one of which one of which is on the agenda tonight for a recommendation on reszoning, right? but others that are not that are non-conforming businesses. Right.

Behind this in the coming months, the city's going to be taking a broader look at the comprehensive plan and the future land use and I expect this to increase in area the amount of commercial that's recommended in this vicinity. So, I get it. But we're we're doing the amendment right now. That's right. For this property, I I get it. And then we're going to vote again so that they can approve this for or there's it's done as far as being a amended once it's amended it's already been approved now as being a commercial business property. So we're not going back to that again. No, this is just now following up the recommendation from us to regarding the

So that's my first thing is that we're basically I was one of the ones and there was another uh person that questioned this. I don't think I was in uh not understanding. I knew what I was understanding. I was asking for this first, which he has clarified. You usually do first. I've worked with other cities. So that's that's the answer to that. The second thing is now that we are doing the amendment now, it does make it it is giving what's basically on paper. We're correcting a bunch of errors to the point where it really is already there. And to follow up with you after the meeting that day, you asked me why did you vote first yes the first time and no the second time is because I had not the correct answer with the amendment because we're following outside of lines and once I realized we were outside of lines right now we're conforming back to lines. So, I could not consciously vote for it at that time for that reason. Okay. So, um anyway, but now it's all getting back into line, which is what all of our I'm sorry, our our everybody here is asking for is that why aren't we in line? And where is that space? I don't want you to leave this room without knowing that there were some behind the-scenes things going and you're mistrusting because it wasn't any mistrust or anything like that. It was more about we're trying to follow some rules that probably weren't given to everybody right at the prominent time. We were all working with this. So, um, anyway, but I just wanted to make sure here tonight stating and it sounds like he's pretty much clarifying

that we're here and you're agreeing that this is moving forward. This is it. Yes. Yes. This this would resolve, you know, those those issues that could have been an issue if not for this amendment. Right. That's right. So, I have a question. I know that this is going to cover three properties. Um, is there potential for additional properties to have to come to us for reasonzoning or is this is this amendment going to cover a broader area of the map?

Th this amendment uh only covers those three properties. Okay. In the future, if if somebody applies for a reasonzoning and they're not consistent with the future land use plan, then staff will identify that and we will bring with any resoning that meets that criteria. We would also bring a future land use amendment at the same time. Okay. So that those would be considered concurrently. Okay. Good. and and future land use. Uh I guess at that point y'all are going to take public some kind of public uh hearings or anything like that before y'all complete that too.

Yeah. If you're talking about the big project citywide, yes, there'll be town halls and surveys and public meetings uh multiple for that project. Okay. So that would help people who to understand that this is not a behind the closed doors us deciding

consideration and action on an amendment to the future landing plan for an area in the general vicinity of the intersection of Third Street, business loop 181 North and Hospital Boulevard comments and I will entertain a motion. There is one to be made. At this time, we make a motion that we approve this.

I have a motion to approve and a second to approve. All in favor? Moving on to the consideration and action on a request to reszone of 0.866 866 acre track of land located at 1295 Hospital Boulevard reszoning from R1 single family residential to be business. You want to go ahead and introduce this please? We have an application from SVG Ranch and what they're doing is out of there 86 acre lot that they're wanting to do a business there. Um so they're asking It it was it is zoned residential. It does show on our map as residential. Um they're so they can have that person there. Um and you have you have the surveys, you have the maps, they're all there. And I do have Miss Cameron here. If you have any questions you would like to ask the building at the hospital, the old It's not the whole lot. It's just a

She is going to come and present a plaque in the future. Is this the Nicholls barbecue? Yes. Okay. So, so this was the bakery and coffee shop prior. Okay. And so it was operated as retail basically in non-conforming. But now that we have an amendment to our future land use, this property is in that area. And so now it should just be a formality. Okay. I make a motion that we approve it. Second. Oh, you know what? I need to ask for

we did a second. Second I motion carries. Uh see consideration and action to approve a ref lot 2 and lot 900 of the GMCO Holdings Incorporated development subdivision lot 17.26 acres located on US 181 near County Road 30 330.

Okay. So what you have in your packet is a flag. I made it big. I have a hard time looking at the little um lot one is the existing daddies right now. So they're replatting lot two three four and lot 900 and 901. 900 is actually the entrance like a little address. Lot 901 is their um drainage area and lot three is where they're proposing to put a business there. I don't know if the engineers right Steve. Yes.

Nice to meet you. This is Steve who's the the engineer for the project. Um and then of course you have the the remainder Mach 2 12.73 acre. Um we said the all the comments there's no objection from our our engineers um both Intrepid and M&S and Phelps has also said objections to the platform. What about the drainage going down?

So that's a great question. Um the 901 wide is actually a area for detention. Okay.

So that we are we're very um very uh aware of you know just how the drainage goes. We want to do our part obviously and to be fair the 901 just covers um uh lots um and we actually overdetain for lots because you know they all kind of go the same place. So we we consider slots one, three and four um for that pond and then there's space uh I want to say yes north of that um the other like if you just push to make a another pond or expand the pond for remainder of lot two depending on where lot two turns into um it's still up in air what you know it's going to happen two.

So I understand that the first uh building is possibly going to be Sher Williams And they're going to process paint to have chemicals.

Yes, they're going to they're going to be able to because it's a commercial building, they can do whatever they want. If they want to mix paint, have chemicals, they can they can have that. So my question is do we have any kind of a system in place if we have a a spill or how much you know all that drainage off those uh that parking lot and all that whatever it is. Do we have any kind of a it's not like it's a city you know block that I've got to worry about how much you know is going into a retention pond let's say like the school over there and it's going into a creek and that kind of stuff.

That's understandable and I I get the question. Um I would tell you just full transparency that there's not a like a a spill drain on the exterior. Um, interwise, you know, they have internal drains. So, they're going to be be showing us uh in their buildings, I guess, or whatever, right? So, yes, sir. So, the building plans and everything right now are actually still getting put together. Well, they're um under review. We've got some comments on from the city as well. Okay. And so yeah, the the interior will have, you know, drain and stuff. You know, obviously there and things like that.

At least more more like the guttering and then what type of uh my other life I'm a I own construction company so and I buy from Sherman Williams a lot and the couple stores I do I get commercial paint and all the chemicals I put together and you know what things happen. We can't help it. And so I'm just trying to figure out because I'm looking at that residence that's sitting right below them and then all that water comes through town of course through all here. So I'm just trying to EPA factor again I I can't speak for what's inside the No, of course not. I understand you collecting everything.

Correct. We understand that the interior would have draining and go to sewer, you know, after whatever checks they have, you know, on exterior we will have, you know, inlets and whatnot, but there's no specialized protection. Okay. It's outside the planning process. Okay. Yeah. Well, I'm just asking as a retention point. I mean, we've been seeing that go up a lot in retention funds are

entertain. Have a motion to approve. Second. Second motion. under advising for that item. So, it'll come back to us. And if there's nothing else from anybody

really at least