It’s back to the drawing board for the Fair Oaks Planning and Zoning Commission after the Fair Oaks Ranch City Council last week nixed the proposed Unified Development Code changes.
A packed house listened as council expressed doubts over amendments to sections 4 and 5 concerning commercial and non-commercial horse stables and ownership.
“Coming from me and my comments, I do not agree with the changes for commercial and non-commercial stables,” Mayor Greg Maxton said in opening the topic discussion.
The Texas Opening Meeting Act prohibits council members from discussing agenda items outside of council meetings. But Maxton said he felt a majority of council shared his opinion.
“My belief is all the council members see it very similar to the way I see it,” Maxton said. “I do not anticipate that these changes that were provided will be approved tonight.”
His statement was greeted with a round of applause from residents packed into council chambers, most there specifically to address the stable issue.
Councilwoman Laura Koerner made the motion to send UDC section 4 and 5 -- 4 addressing zoning regulations, where commercial stables are located in the city’s land use table -- and chapter 5 focusing on subdivision design changes – back to the P&Z for further work and revert back to its original version. The motion passed unanimously.
During discussion, Koerner said she was “surprised and angry, and still am” at the proposed changes.
“This was brought to us in March. We spent two months giving direction to the P&Z,” Koerner said. “I thought we gave very clear instructions that we voted out of council on how we wanted it to come back to us and be presented to the residents.”
In the proposed UDC changes to 4 and 5, she said, “I see a sprinkling of entire policy changes here, that no one has ever come to the council to even ask if we wanted to consider doing this.”
She said she was not even willing to consider changes such as those proposed, “changing setbacks, or lot sizes, or horse restrictions. None of that was even brought to us as something that we wanted to consider making a change to,” she said.
“There are things proposed in here that don’t even follow (the Fair Oaks Ranch Comprehensive Plan). This is why I’m so upset. I’m not even willing to consider what’s in front of me.”
Koerner proposed reverting back to UDC policies put in place in 2019, except for necessary legal changes in the five-section presentation.
Maxton said the changes came from the city’s P&Z, which has spent the better part of two years reviewing and planning adjustments to the city’s Unified Development Code. City Council has the final say on approval or denial of all P&Z’s UDC recommendations.
“Our P&Z members are residents of F.O.R. I honestly and truly believe that their overall intent was for the betterment of our city and for the future of our city,” he said.
“They were protecting what we need to do for the future of our city. Everybody knows we have challenges protecting the future of our city,” he said. “There are developers out there that want to take advantage of us. And I believe that was the intent of what P&Z was focused on.
“But as a result of that, there were some unintended consequences which came from that,” he added.
Maxton read a letter from former Fair Oaks Ranch Councilman Al Schmidt. In it, Schmidt asked, “What prompted the need for the change? In all my years on council up to the present, I’m not aware of any complaints about horses. Is this a solution looking for a problem?'
Under the UDC changes to section 4 and 5, “Even if current owners are grandfathered, their property values would be significantly hurt,” Schmidt wrote. “This appears to be a consultant’s copy of another city’s policy, without any consideration given to the type of city we have.”
Resident Cheryl Pennington told council, “If you have a problem with the horses, then you probably shouldn’t live here. There are a lot of places in Fair Oaks where you can live, and you don’t even have to see a horse.”
Resident Laura Okey, who does not own a horse, spoke in support of neighbors who do. “It is my hope that the language that was proposed by the P&Z Commission that would prevent the future use of those pastures, as well as their definition of a non-commercial farm, that was an oversight by the P&Z, or a misunderstanding,” Okey said.
She also asked council to reject the language and return the item to P&Z for modification.
'While I understand there was no ill intent, I don’t believe we got it right. At all,” Councilwoman Chesley Muenchow said. “I’m pro-property right, and I don’t believe in restricting or removing any of the rights for owners.”
Prior to the council vote, the mayor explained the intent of the council’s vote.
“It’s more important to get this right, than to rush through the process,” Maxton said as council discussed the motion to send the UDC modifications back to P&Z for further analysis and consideration.
The following were requirements the P&Z was to include in its UDC code modifications that would have affected commercial and non-commercial stables: * A parking plan addressing daily use, and special event parking.
* A minimum of 50-foot setback from the property line, dwelling, well, pool, patio, or adjoining lot. Additional setbacks may be increased as part of the Special Use Permit.
* A maximum of two horses per acre.
* A shelter with a roof and a minimum area of 10 feet by 10 feet for each horse with at least one wall, dry footing adjacent to turnouts with water and feed containers.
* A fire protection plan for shelters and facility that meets all fire protection requirements including fire extinguishers and all requirements of the International Fire Code Edition adopted by the city.
* A waste management plan.
* A drainage plan, including drainage to other properties and creek beds.
* A dust control plan. * An insect control plan. * A fencing plan that states fencing to be six feet in height and meets other fencing requirements of the UDC.
* A lighting plan.
Comment
Comments