In a brazen disregard for the law, the Llano Planning and Zoning Commission
knowingly violated at least 3 zoning laws when they approved a zoning
ordinance change that was later passed by City Council:
1.Violation of Llano City Ordinance 735 (Section 110-53 in
Municode) – Changes were made to zoning regulations without written
notification to individual property owners.
2. Violation of Llano City Ordinance 735 and Texas State Zoning Code
Chapter 211.007 – No preliminary report describing the change was
created prior to the Public Hearing.
3. Violation of Texas State Zoning Code 211.004 – The
requested change was not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
I do not use brazen lightly. Brazen is defined as: “bold,
shameless, impudent, and marked by flagrant, insolent audacity.” They knew
they were breaking the law. They were told before the vote that they were
breaking the law. They were given a
9 page document,
with references, that showed they were violating laws. The city was notified
of the violations prior to the meeting.
Their response was that only
text changes to the ordinance were being discussed so notification was not
necessary. At the P&Z meeting, City Manager, Brenton Lewis, and P&Z
Chairwoman, Dianne Firestone, repeated several times that no individual
property owner notification was required because the changes to the zoning
ordinance were only text changes (not regulation changes) which do not
require notification. Brenton Lewis even validated his assertion by stating
he had 20 years experience as a "Zoning Commissioner," although this is not
validated by his résumé.
"Only Text Changes?" Do they think citizens are stupid? The
agenda for the Public
Hearings clearly stated "amending the text and defining uses." Did they
think it was saying, "amending the text and defining SOME OTHER TEXT?" And,
of course, the new
Ordinance 1247 clearly shows the regulation changes.
And if they weren't sure, they could have referenced
the law (Sec 211.003 and Sec
211.004) which was provided to them and which, presumably, they had read
after accepting the position. It unambiguously states that use changes are
regulatory changes.
79 property owners were knowingly denied their lawful
rights. Intentionally.
So what is the result?
However the usage
table is interpreted,
unstudied changes to the usage table for South Ford St resulted
in a loss of property rights in the Dentist Overlay District. This
constitutes eminent domain through the zoning laws. Also lost, because
property owners were not consulted, was an opportunity to discuss the
changes these citizens requested last year, but were ignored.
So what was so important that commissioners and councilpersons risked
misdemeanor penalties? It sure
wasn't to allow property owners the opportunity to open a Palm Reader
business which the change allowed. It was presumably to allow a beauty shop
for one of the property owners in the district. A valid request by a
property owner. The only real impetus for the zoning change. Sadly, had P&Z
just followed the law, this could have been accomplished faster and without
violating the law and property rights.
The other, more cynical, possibility was that this was a test to see if we
are watching, because a complete overhaul of
the zoning ordinance is in the works - without asking us or even telling us.
Should we just call the UN, 1-555-Agenda21, and tell them to come and get
it?
BACK