Dec 15, 2025 Planning and Zoning

[00:00:04]

WELCOME TO THE DECEMBER 15TH, 2025 CITY OF PLANO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

[CALL TO ORDER]

IF ALL WOULD PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 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.

GOOD EVENING. WE DO HAVE A FULL COMMISSION TONIGHT.

COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF IS ON ZOOM WITH US. CAN YOU HEAR US OKAY COMMISSIONER? COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF, CAN YOU HEAR US OKAY? OH, I THOUGHT I HEARD HIM A SECOND AGO.

I CAN'T HEAR A THING. OH, THERE WE GO. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF, CAN YOU HEAR US OKAY? YES, I CAN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE ALL PRESENT AND ACCOUNTED FOR.

OKAY. COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS TONIGHT? THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS. ALL RIGHT. CONSENT AGENDA.

[CONSENT AGENDA ]

ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF.

COMMISSIONER, WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO REMOVE ANYTHING FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.

I WAS JUST GOING TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. ALL RIGHT.

COMMISSIONER BENDER? SECOND THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. AND, COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF, IF YOU WOULD JUST SAY YOUR VOTE OUT LOUD, PLEASE. YES. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0.

ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

[1. (JC) Discussion: Presentation and discussion on updated locations of identified heavy industrial uses in relation to recent state legislative actions. Project #DI2025-016. Applicant: City of Plano. (No action required)]

THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA AND TO INSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY, AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1, DISCUSSION: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION ON UPDATED LOCATIONS OF IDENTIFIED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES IN RELATION TO RECENT STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS.

THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY OF PLANO. GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS JUSTIN COZART. I'M A PLANNER IN THE HERITAGE AND INFORMATION DIVISION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

TONIGHT, I'M PROVIDING AN UPDATE TO THE COMMISSION ON THE MAP THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE CITY.

OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES IN RELATION TO SENATE BILL 840.

THE MAP WAS PROVIDED ON AUGUST 6TH FOR ZONING CASE 2025-007.

THE MAP IDENTIFIES ZONING DISTRICTS IMPACTED BY SENATE BILL 840, IN LOCATIONS THAT ARE EXCEPTED FROM THE BILL'S REQUIREMENTS.

EXCEPTIONS APPLY FOR SITES THAT QUALIFY AS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE AND WITHIN A BUFFER OF 1000FT FROM THOSE SITES.

AND JUST TO RECAP, SENATE 840 IS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE STIPULATIONS.

IT DEFINES A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE AS A STORAGE, PROCESSING OR MANUFACTURING USE WITH PROCESSES USING FLAMMABLE OR EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS WITH HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS, OR THAT IS NOXIOUS OR OFFENSIVE FROM ODORS, SMOKE, NOISE, FUMES OR VIBRATIONS.

AND WHAT WE DID TO IDENTIFY THESE SITES IS WE USE TCEQ AND EPA DATA.

WE LOOKED AT COMPLAINTS. WE REACHED OUT OUTSIDE OF THE CITY FOR COMPLAINTS FROM CITIES LIKE FRISCO AND THE TCEQ.

AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY WE WENT OUTSIDE THE CITY AT THE NEXT SLIDE.

WE COMPLETED AN ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS AFTER THAT FIRST MAP OF AREAS THAT ARE WITHIN A 1000FT OF THE CITY OF PLANO.

SO WE LOOKED AROUND THE CITY LITERALLY. SO IN GRAY ON THIS MAP IS A BUFFER FROM THE CITY WITH 1000FT AREA. AND THEN THERE ARE TWO SITES IN FRISCO THAT WE IDENTIFIED AS HAVING HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES.

BOTH SITES ARE CONCRETE AND ASPHALT MIXING PLANTS THAT ARE WITHIN FRISCO, AND BOTH SITES HAVE A 1000 FOOT BUFFER THAT EXTENDS ACROSS 121 AND GOES INTO PLANO. SO THAT'S HOW WE'RE RELATED TO THOSE. THIS IS A NEW, UPDATED MAP THAT BUILDS ON THAT PREVIOUS VERSION THAT WAS PRESENTED IN AUGUST, AND IT REFLECTS THOSE TWO FRISCO SITES THAT WE DID FIND,

[00:05:01]

ALSO ON THIS MAP ARE THREE SITES THAT ARE POTENTIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL SITES.

AND THEY'RE ALL IN PURPLE AND THEY'RE ALL TOWARDS THE LOWER SOUTHERN PART OF THE CITY.

YOU CAN SEE NEAR PLANO PARKWAY AND COIT AND IN 14TH AND LOS RIOS AND 14TH.

THOSE ARE THREE SITES. THOSE THREE SITES ARE A CONCRETE MIXING PLANT, TWO CONCRETE MIXING PLANTS, AND ONE IS A RECYCLING CENTER.

AND THERE ARE SOME POTENTIAL HEAVY USE, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE CLASSIFICATIONS THAT WE CAN APPLY TO LAND USE IN THE CITY.

THESE ARE SOME OF THE LISTINGS. CONCRETE ASPHALT BATCHING PLANTS, WHICH IS WHAT TWO OF OUR POTENTIAL SITES ARE.

INDUSTRIAL USE LIKE HAZARDOUS WASTE OR NUISANCE PRODUCING ACTIVITIES.

HEAVY INTENSITY MANUFACTURING. SALVAGE OR RECLAMATION OF PRODUCTS, LIKE AUTO SALVAGE.

SAND, GRAVEL, STONE OR PETROLEUM EXTRACTION FROM THE GROUND, OR A LARGE WRECKING YARD MIGHT BE AN EXAMPLE OF A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE WITHIN THE CITY.

THOSE POTENTIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL SITES IN PLANO THAT I JUST WENT THROUGH.

ONE IS REPUBLIC SERVICES AT 4200, 14TH AND WHICH IS WAY OUT EAST BY LOS RIOS.

THE PLANO READY MIX CONCRETE BATCHING PLANT AT 1200 NORTH END AVENUE, WHICH IS JUST SOUTH OF 14TH, AND THE TRACKS. AND SRM THE CONCRETE BATCHING PLANT AT 600 FULGHAM ROAD, WHICH IS WAY SOUTH OF PLANO PARKWAY, WEST OF COIT, KIND OF AN INDUSTRIAL AREA. WE'RE ASKING FOR RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW WE APPLY THESE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES TO SITES. WE'RE ASKING THE COMMISSION FOR SOME DIRECTION ON THE FOLLOWING ABOUT THESE FIVE ADDITIONAL SITES THAT WE ADDED SINCE THAT INITIAL MAP IN AUGUST. ARE THE FIVE ADDITIONAL SITES HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES CONSISTENT WITH THE DEFINITION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND STATE LAW.

AND I CAN GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE AND REPEAT THE DEFINITION.

WE'RE ALSO ASKING FOR CONSIDERATION. ARE ANY OF THE USES AS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES WHEN WE ADMINISTER THE ORDINANCE? OR ANY OF THESE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES. FINALLY, ARE ANY OTHER USES LISTED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES IN ADMINISTERING THE ORDINANCE? SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS SOME CLARIFICATION, SOME DIRECTION ON HOW WE APPLY HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES TO SITES IN THE CITY.

AND THAT IS THE ENTIRE PRESENTATION ABOUT HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE, AND I'M HAPPY TO RETURN TO THE DEFINITION IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IT AGAIN.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION.

SO THIS IS BASED ON CURRENT LAND USE AS OPPOSED TO ZONING, CORRECT? YES, THIS IS CURRENTLY IN USE. SO ARE SOME OF THESE BASICALLY EXISTING NON-CONFORMING USES THAT ARE NOT LOCATED IN A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONING CLASSIFICATION? THE SITES THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY FROM AUGUST, THEY'RE KIND OF ONE OFF SITES.

ONE IS THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT AT LOS RIOS AND 14TH, AND THAT'S AN SUP THAT IS ZONED AG. THE OTHER ONE IS LIVING EARTH, WHICH A LOT OF YOU MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH AT SPRING CREEK IN 75.

YOU SMELLED THAT. THAT ONE IS ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL.

AND THESE ARE ALL EXISTING SITES. THE LAST ONE IS THE CUSTER ROAD TRANSFER STATION, AND IT'S ABOUT 14 ACRES.

IT'S AT CUSTER AND RIDGEVIEW AND IT'S THE DUMP, IF YOU WILL.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF NOISE BEING GENERATED THERE.

SO ALL OF THOSE ARE EXISTING SITES THAT THAT CONFORM TO WHATEVER ZONING POLICIES THAT WE HAVE.

OKAY. SO THOSE ARE NOT NECESSARILY HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONING, THEY'RE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES.

YES, THEY'RE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES. AND I'LL GO BACK TO THE DEFINITION AGAIN SO YOU ALL CAN LOOK AT IT.

OOPS. OKAY, SO THE STATE LAW DEFINES IS ABOUT USES NOT ZONING.

RIGHT, IT'S ABOUT THE USES. AND SO THE POINT OF THAT DEFINITION IS TO PROVIDE A BUFFER FOR THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING THAT'S NOW ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ZONES.

RIGHT. SO THERE'S ALSO A 3000 FOOT BUFFER FROM AIRPORTS, WHICH WE HAVE THAT IN THE SOUTHWEST PART OF THE CITY FROM DALLAS AIRPARK AIRPORT.

THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS. COMMISSION ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? MR. BRONSKY? TURNED OFF. THERE YOU GO. SO ON THE, SINCE IT IS USES, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE AREA AROUND THE LIVING EARTH WOULD COMPLY WITH THIS AND SHOULD BE

[00:10:01]

BUT CURRENTLY FOR US THAT IS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION IT IS PRODUCES ODORS.

AND SO WHAT THAT PROVIDES FOR IS 1000-FOOT BUFFER FROM THAT SITE WHICH IS 14 ACRES.

THE SITE GOES ACROSS 75. IT GOES EAST OF K. SO IT'S IT'S KIND OF A LARGE SITE THAT WE CAN BUFFER.

AND SO THAT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR ANY OF THE SB 840 PROVISIONS TO BE APPLIED WITHIN THAT EXCEPTION ZONE.

SO FOR ME, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I THINK THAT WE DO NEED TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS AND VERY RESPECTFUL OF OUR CITIZENS AND INCLUDING AND LABELING THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AREAS, INCLUDING THINGS LIKE THE LIVING EARTH AND THESE OTHERS.

TO BE CERTAIN THAT OUR RESIDENTS, AS WELL AS OUR BUSINESSES GET WHAT THEY EXPECT.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY COMMENT. COMMISSIONER ALALI.

MY QUESTION IS LIKE, ARE WE JUST DEFINING THOSE AREAS AS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL OR THE PEOPLE THE OWNERS HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ZONING CHANGE TO CHANGE THEM TO INDUSTRIAL? AND ONCE THEY CHANGE THE ZONING, IF IT'S REQUIRED, WHAT OTHER LIKE IMPLICATION THAT IS GOING TO GO FOR THE SURROUNDING AREAS.

SO THIS ISN'T CURRENTLY ZONING. THIS IS JUST THE STIPULATIONS OF SENATE BILL 840.

AND I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SENATE BILL 840 WAS WRITTEN INTO LAW AS TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 218.

SO IT IS LAW, BUT THE WAY WE PACKAGED IT WAS AS A SENATE BILL.

SO THAT'S WHY I'M REFERRING IT TO THAT. BUT WHAT IT DOES IS IT ALLOWS FOR EXPANDED MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN ZONES THAT WERE NOT ZONED FOR THAT BEFORE.

AND WHAT THESE SITES ARE, ARE SIMPLY EXCEPTIONS TO THAT AREA IN SB 840.

SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ZONING. THE ZONING WOULD REMAIN THE SAME.

ANYTHING THAT'S BEEN ALLOWED BEFORE OR APPROVED BEFORE IS GOING TO BE OKAY.

IT'S JUST A RESTRICTION ON THAT FUTURE SB 840 INFLUX OF DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD HAPPEN.

SO THE OWNERS AREN'T AFFECTED. THE OWNERS CAN CONTINUE TO DO WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

IT'S JUST A CLASSIFICATION ON OUR PART. WHEN SOMEONE WANTS TO BUILD SOMETHING IN ONE OF THOSE AREAS WHERE WE SAY, YOU'RE CLOSE TO A SMELLY PLACE OR A LOUD PLACE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

YEAH, OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. COZART, IF I COULD.

I THINK THE SITES IDENTIFIED ON YOUR MAP ARE EXISTING SITES TODAY.

THEY'RE NOT ASKING TO DO FOR PERMISSION TO DO THIS USE.

THEY'VE ALREADY GOT THAT EITHER THROUGH THEIR ZONING OR THROUGH THEIR LEGAL NON-CONFORMITY, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. THANK YOU. SO ON THIS MAP HERE, THEY'RE IN PINK ON THIS MAP, SO YOU CAN SEE THE THREE SITES WITH THEIR ASSOCIATED BUFFERS.

THE DUMP AT THE TOP, LIVING EARTH AND THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT.

WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THE DIRECTION ON IS HOW TO CLASSIFY FUTURE SITES.

AND THERE'S TWO KIND OF WAYS WE CAN GO ABOUT IT.

WE CAN LOOK AT THE LAND USE AS A BLANKET AND SAY, IF IT'S A CONCRETE PLANT, IT'S A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE PLANT.

THERE'S ANOTHER WAY WE CAN DO IT, AND WE CAN LOOK AT EACH SPECIFIC SITE AND DETERMINE IF IT'S HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE OR NOT, WHICH IS WHAT WE DID WITH THESE, BECAUSE IT'S THE FIRST TIME WE DID IT AND THERE'S NOT A HUGE LIST OF EXISTING HEAVY INDUSTRIAL SITES IN THE CITY.

WE KIND OF GO THROUGH EVERYTHING. AND THE PROBLEM WITH NOT GOING WITH LAND USE IS THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT EACH SITE SPECIFICALLY, YOU'RE RELYING ON EXTERNAL FORCES. YOU'RE RELYING ON NEIGHBORS TO COMPLAIN AND US TO HAVE, LIKE A WRITTEN COMPLAINT. SO WHEN WE ADDED THESE SITES, WE WERE ADDING THEM BY THEIR USES FOR THE MOST PART.

SO, WE'VE GOT THE CONCRETE READY MIX PLANT IN FRISCO ON THE NORTH SIDE.

AT INDEPENDENCE IN 121. WE'VE GOT ONE WAY ON THE WEST SIDE.

THOSE ARE BOTH CONCRETE MIXING PLANTS, AND WE'VE GOT TWO CONCRETE MIXING PLANTS IN PLANO AND A RECYCLING CENTER.

SO THOSE ARE THE USES THAT WE WOULD NEED DIRECTION ON.

SHOULD WE CALL ALL OF THESE USES HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE FOR THE PURPOSES OF SB 840? OR SHOULD WE LOOK AT EACH SITE WHEN WE SEE IT AND DETERMINE IT FROM THAT POINT? COMMISSIONER ALALI, IS THAT YOUR QUESTION? YES. OKAY.

COMMISSIONER OLLEY. LET ME MAKE A COUPLE OF STATEMENTS JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY.

CURRENTLY, THIS IS A NON RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, WHICH PRIOR TO SB SP 840.

WE DIDN'T HAVE RESIDENTIAL USES IN THERE. THE WAY THE ZONE CORRIDOR, COMMERCIAL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DIFFERENT CATEGORIZATIONS. WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE IS ESSENTIALLY NOW THAT BY RIGHT, THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS ARE ALLOWED TO BE RESIDENTIAL. WE ARE TRYING TO CREATE A BUFFER FROM CURRENT USAGE, DEPENDING ON HOW WE CATEGORIZE HEAVY

[00:15:02]

RIGHT, SO THOSE BLUE ZONES DIDN'T ALLOW MULTIFAMILY BY RIGHT BEFORE AND NOW THEY DO.

SO THERE'S SOME THERE'S SOME RESIDENTIAL IN THE BLUE AREAS.

BUT IT WAS DIRECTED BY THE CITY. NOW IT'S CAN KIND OF BE ANYWHERE IN THOSE BLUE ZONES.

SO IF YOU NOTICE OUR POTENTIAL SITES, THOSE ARE ALL IN AREAS WHERE WE WOULDN'T HAVE ALLOWED THAT MULTIFAMILY BY RIGHT BEFORE.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? IT DOES. SO ONE QUESTION WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THE DEFINITION OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE, IS THERE A TIME ASPECT TO IT? SO FOR INSTANCE, DO I HAVE TO BE PRODUCING NOISE OR FUMES OR WHATEVER OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE IT QUALIFIES? DO I HAVE TO PRODUCE IT ONE TIME? IT WOULDN'T BE ONE TIME.

IT WOULDN'T BE LIKE A CONSTRUCTION TRAILER MAKING NOISE. IT WOULD BE LIKE A PERMANENT CONCRETE BATCH PROCESSING PLANT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT YOU COULD HEAR, YOU KNOW, LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD PRODUCE NOISE SMOKE FUMES, ODORS LIKE THAT, SO IT WOULD BE A LONGER-TERM SITUATION.

AS A FEATURE OF THE BUSINESS NOISE, FUMES, WHAT HAVE YOU.

ABSOLUTELY A REASONABLE PRODUCTION. YES, EXACTLY.

SO IF SOMEONE'S LIVING NEARBY, THEY WOULD BE MAYBE DISTURBED BY THE NOISE OF LOADING TRUCKS OR THE SMELL OF PEOPLE DUMPING THINGS FOR TRANSPORTATION. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.

OKAY, SO I DIDN'T, LIKE, DRIVE THROUGH THE WHOLE CITY AND KIND OF LOOK AT ALL THE OTHER SITES AND THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE CITY, BUT SO THESE ARE. OKAY.

THESE ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT IDENTIFIED. I MEAN, LIKE, I SAW YOU MENTIONED TRANSFER STATION.

LIKE, I DIDN'T SEE THE ONE THERE AT BEHIND THE ANIMAL CONTROL ANIMAL.

PARKWAY. [INAUDIBLE] PARKWAY. I DIDN'T SEE THAT ON HERE.

IS DOES THAT LOOK AT DO WE WANT TO LOOK AT WHEN THAT KIND OF FALLS IN THE SAME KIND OF.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION ON IS THOSE KINDS OF ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS.

BUT WHAT WE DID INITIALLY IS WE HAD AN AUGUST 6TH MEETING AND THEN THE BILL TOOK EFFECT SEPTEMBER 1ST.

AND SO WE KIND OF CHOSE THE BIG ONE OFF THINGS THAT WE WERE SURE WERE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE.

WE'RE ASKING FOR GUIDANCE ON HOW TO DEFINE THAT IN THE FUTURE.

SO WE WOULD SAY IF THE LAND USE IS, FOR EXAMPLE, A TRANSFER STATION, THEN IT WOULD BE A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE SITE.

WHAT WE LOOKED AT WAS THE ONE ON CUSTER IS CLOSE TO MULTIFAMILY.

IT'S GOT ITS BUFFER, INCLUDES MULTIFAMILY, IT'S GOT COMPLAINTS.

PEOPLE HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT IT. THE OTHER ONE IS ON PLANO PKWY AND IT'S THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL NEARBY.

I DON'T BELIEVE SO. THOSE ARE THE DIFFERENCES.

BUT WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU IS TO GUIDE US ON. DO YOU WANT US TO CONTINUE TO DO IT THAT WAY AND LOOK AT EACH SITE AS IT STANDS ALONE, OR DO YOU WANT US TO KIND OF JUST BLANKET ANY TRANSFER STATION IS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL.

BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WITH THIS NEW LAW, A NON-INDUSTRIAL, A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE CAN ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY TO SOME DEGREE.

ABSOLUTELY. SO YEAH CURRENTLY THERE'S NOT ANY RESIDENTIAL BUT THERE ARE, THERE ARE COMMERCIAL LAND AND OTHER THINGS AROUND IT THAT THAT COULD POTENTIALLY DOWN THE ROAD, COULD POTENTIALLY BE A MULTIFAMILY SITUATION.

YEAH. FOR EXAMPLE, ON ONE OF THESE SITES ON FULHAM ROAD, IT'S A CONCRETE MIXING PLANT AND THERE'S UNDEVELOPED LAND ADJACENT TO IT ACROSS THE RAILROAD TRACK THAT COULD BE USED FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT, BASED ON SB 840.

BUT THAT CONCRETE MIXING PLANT HAS NOT HAD ANY NOISE OR ODOR COMPLAINTS BECAUSE THERE'S NOT REALLY.

I'M SPEAKING ANECDOTALLY HERE, BUT THERE'S NOT PEOPLE LIVING NEARBY TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT.

BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY THERE WOULDN'T BE IN THE FUTURE. YEAH, AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS KIND OF LOOKING AHEAD, YOU KNOW. YEAH. CURRENTLY THAT'S THE CASE. BUT NOW THAT THE DOOR HAS BEEN OPENED FOR OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTS TO POTENTIALLY BE ADDED TO THOSE AREAS AT SOME POINT. SO, SO I THINK BACKING WHAT COMMISSIONER BRONSKY AND MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD LOOK AT WHAT THE RESIDENTS AND BE TRUE TO THEM AND MAKE SURE THAT WE PROTECT THEM EVEN FOR THE FUTURE, YOU KNOW. AND TO ME, I DO THINK A BLANKET USE IS IMPORTANT.

AND THEN TO KIND OF GO BACK TO WHAT COMMISSIONER OLLEY WAS TALKING ABOUT, YOU MENTIONED SMELLS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

HOW DO WE KIND OF POLICE THAT KIND OF THING? BECAUSE HE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT THAT, YOU KNOW, EXTENDED PERIOD. DO WE DOES IT SMELL BAD FOR SO LONG, AND THEN THAT'S HOW WE DETERMINE IT, OR? BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY COMES BEFORE US AND THEY WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS USE, WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS THING. AND, YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT ASK THEM, IS THIS GOING TO SMELL BAD? THEY, NOW WE'RE AT THEIR MERCY. ARE THEY GOING TO BE HONEST WITH US OR DO THEY EVEN KNOW SO WE'D HAVE TO EXPLORE THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.

[00:20:09]

AND WE'RE NOT SURE YET AND WE WOULD TAKE DIRECTION ON THAT AS WELL.

OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAD. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.

I'M NOT SURE IF I GOT YOU IN THE RIGHT ORDER OR NOT. THAT'S OKAY.

THANK YOU. I WANT TO MAKE SURE. IS IT YOUR CONTENTION THAT EACH OF THE SIX PROPOSED NEW OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES MATCHES AT LEAST ONE OF THE CRITERIA OF SENATE BILL 840? YES. OKAY. IF IT DOES, I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S NOT A NEED.

THIS IS TAKING COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER COMMENTS.

IS THERE A NEED TO DOCUMENT THE FACT THAT THEY DO MATCH SENATE BILL 840? FOR EXAMPLE, DO YOU HAVE TO DOCUMENT THAT A USE MIGHT INVOLVE FLAMMABLE OR EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS OR A CONDITION THAT IS OBJECTIVELY HAZARDOUS.

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU OBJECTIVELY MEASURE NOXIOUS OR OFFENSIVE EMISSIONS.

PERHAPS GO TO THE NEIGHBORS AND SEE IF THEY'RE BOTHERED BY IT. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I MEAN, IS THERE SOME NEED TO GO AROUND AND TRY TO FIND SOME OBJECTIVE SUPPORT FOR THE MATCH BETWEEN THE PROPOSED USES AND SENATE BILL 840? YEAH, I THINK, LIKE I SAID, WE'D HAVE TO RELY ON AN EXTERNAL SOURCE FOR COMPLAINTS.

AND IT'S NOT LIKE A SURVEY WE WOULD BE DOING.

WE WOULD BE SAYING IF IT'S A CONCRETE BATCH PLANT, IT IS A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE BECAUSE THAT USE PRODUCES NOISE IN ITS NORMAL DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS. I DON'T KNOW IF WE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY OR THE STRUCTURAL CAPABILITY TO GO AROUND AND CHECK THEM.

THAT MIGHT BE A. I COULD SEE A PROPERTY OWNER COMING IN AND SAYING, WELL, THERE'S SOME NOISE, BUT IT'S NOT NOXIOUS, YOU KNOW, OR, WE DON'T HANDLE EXPLOSIVES OR FLAMMABLE MATERIALS, THAT'S WHY.

THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS IF THE SIX USES ARE DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE AS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES, BUT THEY ARE IN ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ARE NOT HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, HAVE YOU NOT CREATED A NON-CONFORMING USE SITUATION? NO. THE USES FOR EXAMPLE, A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT IS ALLOWED AS AN SUP IN ZONING DISTRICTS.

AND THIS ISN'T A ZONING ISSUE PER SE. IT'S A LAND USE ISSUE SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO SB 840, SO. NO, NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT IF THERE IF THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY DOES NOT PERMIT HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES AND YET THEY'RE CARRYING ON HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES, DON'T YOU HAVE A NON-CONFORMING USE? WELL, IF I COULD INTERJECT HERE, WHY DON'T WE GET A LEGAL OPINION ABOUT HOW THIS WOULD BE EITHER INTERPRETED OR APPEALED. THANK YOU. SURE, SO OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HANDLING ANY KIND OF APPEALS OF OFFICIAL DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE AT A DIRECTOR LEVEL.

SO IF THE DEPARTMENT DECIDED THAT SOMETHING'S A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE AND SAY, A NEIGHBOR WHO WANTS TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY IS IMPACTED BY THAT, THEY COULD BRING THE QUESTION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR A DETERMINATION.

JUST SO YOU ALL KNOW, THERE IS A BUILT IN PROCESS FOR HANDLING THIS.

THANK YOU. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF? YEAH, NO. YEAH, MY POINT IS I DON'T WANT TO SEE A CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER WHO'S CARRYING ON A PRESENTLY LAWFUL USE, DISADVANTAGED BY DEFINING HIS USE OUT OF HIS ZONING, THAT'S ALL.

YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER TONG. MR. CHAIRMAN. SO MY QUESTION IS, I LIKE, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.

I LIKE THE CATEGORIES THAT YOU'RE PRESENTING HERE.

THE ONLY THING I'M THINKING ABOUT THAT WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE IS REGARDING THE NOISE LEVEL.

AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT. MAYBE WE SHOULD SET A CERTAIN NUMBER, SOMETHING MEASURABLE.

EVEN THOUGH FOR THESE IDENTIFIED SITES, MAYBE WE DIDN'T DO THE TEST, BUT IN THE FUTURE, FOR US TO IDENTIFY ANY SITES THAT HAS A CERTAIN NOISE LEVEL WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE.

I MEAN, THESE ARE CONCRETE NUMBERS THAT WE CAN COME UP WITH.

[00:25:02]

THEN WE CAN SET THAT. IF IT'S ABOVE THAT THRESHOLD, THEN THEY CAN.

WE CAN IDENTIFY THEM AS HEAVY USE. BUT IF NOT YEAH.

THESE ARE THE DATA THAT GREAT THAT YOU USE THEM, BUT DO YOU HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER ALREADY SET OR NO? WE DON'T HAVE A DECIBEL THRESHOLD SET THAT WOULD REQUIRE A SURVEY OF MAYBE A CONSULTANT TO COME IN LIKE WE DID WITH OUR EXPRESSWAY DECIBEL CORRIDORS TO DETERMINE NOISE LEVELS AND THE, THE WHY I WENT BACK TO THE DEFINITION IS THAT A SITE IS OFFENSIVE FROM NOISE, FOR EXAMPLE. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A CONTINUOUS NOISE.

IT COULD BE LOADING TRUCKS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT WITH ROCKS.

SO MAYBE WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MEASURE THAT. SO WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A WAY TO CONSISTENTLY GET DECIBEL LEVEL FOR NOISE FOR THAT, WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO SAY THAT THIS USE IS IN GENERAL A NOISY USE.

AND WE DO HAVE SITES WITH COMPLAINTS. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RECEIVES COMPLAINTS ABOUT CERTAIN SITES ABOUT THEIR NOISE.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE A QUANTIFIABLE NUMBER FOR THAT NOISE UNFORTUNATELY.

WELL, WE DON'T HAVE ONE NOW, BUT IS IT A GOOD TIME TO SET UP ONE? BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE EVEN THOUGH DUMPING ROCKS COULD BE MAYBE ONE TIME ON ONE DAY.

HOWEVER, IF THIS IS A SITE THAT DUMPS ROCKS LIKE FIVE TRUCKS A DAY OR, YOU KNOW, 15 TRACKS A WEEK, THAT'S A CONSISTENCY. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TEST, RIGHT? SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT.

AND ALSO I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME MANUFACTURERS.

THEY EVEN THOUGH THEY MANUFACTURE LITTLE THINGS, MAYBE THEY MANUFACTURE A, YOU KNOW, PLASTIC BOTTLE.

THE THING ITSELF COULD BE REALLY, LIGHT. IT'S NOT HEAVY, BUT THE MACHINE CAN BE REALLY NOISY.

HOW DO WE JUST. HOW DO WE IDENTIFY THE NOISE LEVEL? IT'S POSSIBLE THEY HAVE A NOISE CANCELLATION ALREADY OUTSIDE THEIR WALLS BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEIR MACHINES ARE NOISY.

BUT IT'S POSSIBLE THEY DON'T. SO HOW DO WE DO, YOU KNOW, JUDGE WHETHER THAT IS A HEAVY USE OR NOT? WE HAVE TO FALL BACK ON THE DEFINITION IN THE LAW WHERE IT SAYS THE SITE IS NOXIOUS OR OFFENSIVE FROM ALL THESE THINGS, NOISE BEING ONE OF THEM. AND WE HAVE TO GET DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION ON HOW WE.

MR. COZART, I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU IS TO DO IT ON A SIDE-BY-SIDE BASIS, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE OPTIONS.

RIGHT. WE'RE NOT PREPARED TO DO THAT STUDY FOR EVERY USE AND WHAT NOISE COULD BE CREATED.

SO, THE DIRECTION WOULD BE TO JUST THEN TAKE THEM ON CASE BY CASE AND EVALUATE THE INDIVIDUAL NUISANCES CREATED FROM A SPECIFIC SITE.

THAT'S KIND OF OPTION ONE. OPTION TWO IS WE'RE JUST CONSIDERING EVERYTHING THAT COULD MAKE THOSE FUMES AND NOISES AS AN INDUSTRIAL USE.

AND THEREFORE WE'RE GOING TO APPLY THE LIMITATIONS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE HAVING ODORS AND SMOKE AND NOISE.

THE TCEQ MAY HAVE PERMITS OR MITIGATION THAT REQUIRES THEM TO MITIGATE THOSE, BUT IF THEY'RE NOT MET OR IF THERE'S A FAILURE, THEN THEY CREATE THOSE ISSUES FOR ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

AND SO THAT'S KIND OF THE APPROACH FOR THE OPTION B.

LOOK AT THESE USES THAT COULD RESULT IN THESE POTENTIAL USES AND LABEL THEM AS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL.

OKAY. SO LET ME OFFER SOMETHING. IN THE RAC COMMITTEE, WE WENT THROUGH A VERY DETAILED DISCUSSION ABOUT DEFINING HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE, TRAFFIC NOISE, NOXIOUS ODORS.

IF YOU GO BACK TO YOUR LIST OF THE USES THAT YOU WERE LOOKING AT, I'M PRETTY SURE THAT ALL OF THOSE ARE CONSIDERED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL IN OUR CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE, CORRECT? NO, THEY'RE NOT.

WE DON'T HAVE A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY CURRENTLY.

WE HAVE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT, BUT NOT A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL LAND USE.

YEAH, BUT WE HAVE A WE HAVE A DEFINITION THOUGH.

OF HEAVY MANUFACTURING IS WHAT WE HAVE. OKAY.

MAYBE THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING OF WITH ALL OF THESE FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY.

NO. ONLY THE MANUFACTURING HEAVY INTENSITY, THE BULLET POINT THREE, THE OTHERS ARE INDIVIDUAL USES.

THEY ARE CLASSIFIED AS INDUSTRIAL, BUT WE DON'T DIFFERENTIATE THE HEAVY MEDIUM OR LIGHT CURRENTLY.

OKAY. I WAS THINKING WE DID THAT. SO. OKAY, I STAND CORRECTED.

ALL RIGHT. SORRY. ONE MORE THING. OKAY. SO WE ALSO, I'M ALSO THINKING THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE NEED TO CONSIDER TO PUT INTO THE, THIS CLASSIFICATION. WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN RIGHT NOW FOR EXISTING BUSINESSES, ONCE WE PUT THE CLASSIFICATION IN PLACE

[00:30:02]

MAYBE WE'LL FIND ANOTHER 16 OR ANOTHER 17, BUT THOSE ARE EXISTING USES.

WHAT IF THESE CLASSIFICATIONS WITH THE NEW LAW PUT THEM OUT OF COMPLIANCE? SO WHAT DO WE DO TO MITIGATE THAT IN COMPLIANCE? THE SITES THEMSELVES ARE NOT AFFECTED AND THE OWNERS ARE NOT AFFECTED.

ALL WE'RE DOING IS SAYING THAT THIS SITE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE DEFINITION, AND IT CREATES A BUFFER AROUND THE SITE THAT LIMITS THAT SB 840 ACTIVITY BY RIGHT.

SO THE OWNERS, NOBODY'S BEING PENALIZED. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE SITES THEMSELVES.

IT'S ABOUT THE RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT YOU CAN DO AROUND THE SITES.

SO WHATEVER EXISTING RIGHT NOW IS NOT IMPACTED.

IT WILL NOT PUT THE SITE ITSELF OUT OF COMPLIANCE.

NO, WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, LIVING EARTH IS AN ODOROUS SITE AND WITHIN 1000FT OF THAT.

WE CAN'T BUILD MULTIFAMILY BY RIGHT BECAUSE IT'S IN THAT ZONE THAT SB 840 ALLOWS IT FOR.

BUT WE'RE CREATING THAT ENVELOPE AROUND IT TO SORT OF SHIELD FUTURE RESIDENTS OR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FROM THAT.

WHAT IF BEFORE. WHAT IF THERE'S ALREADY AN APARTMENT ACROSS THE STREET? YEAH, IT COULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON EXISTING MULTIFAMILY, SHOULD THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE THERE AS THEY ARE.

BUT IT MIGHT IMPACT THEIR ABILITY TO EXPAND OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AS A POTENTIALLY BECOMING NONCONFORMING USE NO LONGER BEING PERMITTED.

OKAY. SO WHEN WE IDENTIFY THESE USES, SHOULD WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHETHER IT WILL PUT THEM OUT OF COMPLIANCE OR NOT? OR WE, DOESN'T MATTER. IT DOESN'T MATTER, WE'LL JUST CLASSIFY THEM.

THEY'RE STILL GOING TO BE A CONFORMING USE. IT'S REALLY ABOUT AFFECTING THE PROPERTY AROUND THEM.

NOT THAT, NOT THE ACTUAL. SO THE BATCH PLANT ISN'T OUT OF COMPLIANCE.

IT'S ALREADY AS FAR AS THEIR ZONING IS CONCERNED.

IT'S THE, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS RIGHT. IT'S ABOUT THE USE BY RIGHT FOR THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

NOW THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T COME IN AND ASK FOR A ZONING CASE FOR MULTI-FAMILY RIGHT NEXT DOOR.

THEY JUST HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. THEY DON'T HAVE A USE BY RIGHT FOR MULTI-FAMILY.

THAT'S CORRECT. CORRECT. FOR A NEW MULTIFAMILY USE COMING IN.

I THINK THE QUESTION WAS IF THERE'S AN EXISTING MULTIFAMILY WITHIN THIS BUFFER AREA, ARE THEY IMPACTED? AND THE ANSWER IS THEY COULD BE. THEY COULD STILL GET A ZONING CASE.

THEY JUST WOULDN'T HAVE A USE BY. RIGHT. CORRECT.

SO THEY CAN STILL APPEAL TO US AND WE COULD STILL GRANT THEM A CAVE.

WE CAN STILL GRANT AN APPROVAL ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

THEY JUST WOULDN'T HAVE THE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THE USE BY RIGHT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. OKAY. I'M GOING TO GET TO YOU, MR. BRONSKY. COMMISSIONER OLLEY. I THINK WE'RE SOLVING FOR THE WRONG THING.

ALL RIGHT. I TRULY DO. RIGHT NOW, THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY MULTIFAMILY IN THE BLUE AREAS BECAUSE THEY WERE NONRESIDENTIAL BEFORE SB 840.

AM I CORRECT IN THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE. THEY WERE NONRESIDENTIAL BEFORE SB 840.

SB 840, HAS OPENED IT UP FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, AND NOW WE'RE TRYING.

WE HAVE TO. SAY IT AGAIN. THERE COULD BE LOCATIONS WITH MULTIFAMILY.

IT WAS ABOUT THE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT DID NOT ALLOW MULTIFAMILY, BUT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT ALLOWED THE MULTIFAMILY USE ON A SPECIFIC SITE. BUT EVEN IF WE HAD A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, WE ALREADY HAD THINGS ON THE BOOKS THAT REQUIRED BUFFER FROM OPEN STORAGE AND A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS WHERE I'LL BE VERY SURPRISED IF WE HAVE ANYTHING WITHIN.

FOR THE MAPPING EXERCISE THAT WAS PREPARED BACK IN AUGUST WE DIDN'T GO THROUGH EACH PD AND IDENTIFY WHICH ONE ALLOWS MULTIFAMILY USE.

IT WAS BASED ON THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT. OKAY.

I STILL THINK THE IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, THESE BUSINESSES ARE NOT NON-CONFORMING TO THEIR ZONING CURRENTLY.

YEAH. WE ARE NOT BRINGING ANY UNDUE BURDEN ON THESE BUSINESSES.

WE ARE BASICALLY MAPPING OUT A BUFFER FOR ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO BUILD NEXT TO THEM HAS TO ADHERE TO THIS BUFFER, NOT THE EXISTING BUSINESS. IF SOMEBODY HAS COMES IN, THEY HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE BUFFER OR GO THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS TO GET A WAIVER. IF THAT'S WHAT WE ARE SOLVING FOR, I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK WE NEED THRESHOLDS NECESSARILY.

BECAUSE WHAT IS NOXIOUS TO ME MIGHT BE NOT NOXIOUS TO SOMEBODY ELSE.

WHAT WE ESSENTIALLY SHOULD DO IS DEFINE ON A LAND USE BASIS, AND IF THE

[00:35:04]

IT'S NOT ABOUT WE'RE NOT CREATING A BUFFER NECESSARILY.

WE'RE CREATING A ZONE WHERE THERE IS NOT A USE BY RIGHT FOR MULTIFAMILY.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T STILL HAVE A ZONING CASE TO ASK FOR MULTIFAMILY ON UNDER THE NORMAL PROCESS.

IT'S JUST THEY DON'T HAVE A USE BY RIGHT INSIDE THAT BUFFER ZONE WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A ZONING CASE.

CORRECT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO EITHER COME TO US OR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FOR A WAIVER.

THEY WOULD HAVE TWO AVENUES GO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO HAVE IT DECLARED, NOT A NOXIOUS USE OR COME TO US FOR A ZONING.

EXACTLY, EXACTLY. AND I THINK. WE COULD STILL BUILD THERE IF THEY GOT ONE OF THOSE APPROVALS.

RIGHT. AND IF THEY WANT TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE THE SMELL AS PART OF THEIR BUILDING OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

RIGHT. BUT IF THAT'S WHAT WE ARE SOLVING FOR, THEN I WOULD PROPOSE WE GO BACK TO THE SIX AND BASICALLY WALK THROUGH THOSE AND DETERMINE IF WE WANT TO CLASSIFY THEM AS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE AND GIVE THE FEEDBACK THAT WE HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR. OKAY. LET ME GO TO COMMISSIONER BRONSKY FIRST, AND THEN WE CAN GO THROUGH THOSE BECAUSE YOU'VE.

OKAY. SO I'VE GOT SEVERAL QUESTIONS GOING IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS HERE.

SO FIRST I WANT TO ASK FOLLOWING COMMISSIONER OLLEY AS WELL AS TONG QUESTIONS.

CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE NOXIOUS SMELLS AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS? THE DEFINITION? YES. THE DEFINITIONS. SO I'VE GOT A CONCERN ON THE OBJECTIVITY OF THE DEFINITIONS. IF I LOOK AT HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS IN SOME CASES NOXIOUS AND OFFENSIVE ODORS I MEAN, I COULD LOOK AT THE COLLIN CREEK MALL DEVELOPMENT AND SAY THAT THAT SHOULD BE LABELED A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE BECAUSE IT QUALIFIES UNDER TWO OF THOSE THREE.

SO I'VE GOT SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. IS THERE A WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T CREATE THESE LITTLE ZONES ALL ACROSS OUR CITY WHENEVER WE'RE TRYING TO FIT THINGS INTO ANYTHING THAT COULD APPLY, AND THEN WE'D HAVE THESE LITTLE THOUSAND-FOOT POCKETS ALL OVER THE CITY? WELL, FOR COLLIN CREEK MALL, JUST TO USE YOUR EXAMPLE, IT BEGINS WITH THE DEFINITION OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AS A STORAGE OR PROCESSING OR MANUFACTURING USE. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO APPLY TO ANYTHING THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVES AS FAR AS ZONING AND CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE THAT WOULD JUST BE, YOU KNOW, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION. IT'S LOUD. YES.

AND IT MAKES NOISE. YES. AND IT SMELLS, PROBABLY, BUT IT'S TEMPORARY.

IT'S NOT A LONG-TERM STORAGE, PROCESSING OR MANUFACTURING USE, SO.

BUT I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE, SO AS I'VE SAT HERE AND LISTENED, I'M KIND OF LEANING IN THE DIRECTION USING MR. BELL'S IDEAS OF OPTION 1 AND 2. I'M LEANING IN THE IDEA OF GOING WITH OPTION 2, BUT FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH OPTION 1 TO KIND OF MERGE THEM TOGETHER, BECAUSE I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE OBJECTIVITY AND THE ABILITY TO SKEW THE DEFINITION A LITTLE BIT THAT I THINK THAT NONE OF US WANT TO HAVE.

MY SECOND QUESTION IS THESE HEAVY USE AREAS, MITIGATION DOESN'T MATTER, DOES IT? NO. SO IF THEY'RE, IF THEY HAVE A WAY TO MITIGATE THE SMELL, IT'S STILL A 1000-FOOT BUFFER AROUND THERE.

WHETHER THEY CAN MITIGATE THE SMELL OR THE SOUND, NO MATTER WHAT.

CORRECT. YES, BECAUSE OF THE USE, THE USE MAKES THE.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. COMMISSIONER OLLEY HAD ASKED ABOUT THAT AND TALKED ABOUT MITIGATION, AND I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE THAT MITIGATION IS IRRELEVANT TO WHAT WE'RE BUFFERING.

IT WOULD BE RELEVANT IN THE SENSE THAT IF AN APPLICANT OR DEVELOPMENT WERE IN THE 1000-FOOT BUFFER OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME TO YOU INSTEAD OF IT BEING APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY BY RIGHT.

THEY HAVE TO COME TO YOU AND AND SHOW YOU THESE MITIGATING FACTORS.

AND THEN YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE OR DENY THE DEVELOPMENT.

THAT'S BEING IT WOULDN'T JUST BE APPROVED BY RIGHT, LIKE IT WOULD BE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY. BUT IN TERMS OF THE LABELING OF WHAT WE'RE

[00:40:03]

RIGHT, IT'S 1000-FOOT BUFFER REGARDLESS, BASED ON THE USE OF THE PARCEL IN QUESTION AT THE CENTER.

IF I COULD EXPLAIN HOW THIS MIGHT WORK IN PRACTICE, THE OPTION 1 OF DOING IT CASE BY CASE WAY, THIS REALLY WORKS IN THE REAL-LIFE DAY TO DAY IS SOMEBODY COMES IN WITH A REQUEST, A PRE-APPLICATION MEETING, AND THEY SAY THEY WANT TO DO THIS USE. IF WE GO WITH OPTION 1, IT'S UPON THE STAFF TO EVALUATE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE AROUND AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED IF THERE ARE ANY HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES AROUND.

OPTION 2 WOULD BE WE WOULD HAVE A MAP AND WE WOULD SAY BASED ON OUR LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS, WE'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED THIS AS A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE AREA.

THEREFORE, OUR DIRECTION BACK TO YOU IS THAT THIS USE IS NOT PERMITTED.

THEN THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO SAY, WELL, WE AGREE, WE DISAGREE, AND THERE ARE PROCEDURES IN THE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THEM TO MOVE FORWARD IF THEY DISAGREE. CORRECT, AND THAT'S PART OF THE REASON I THINK IT'S WISE TO START OFF WITH OPTION 2, BUT THEN FOLLOW THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ALLOWING THE STAFF TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS IN OPTION 1.

AND SO I LOOK AT OPTION 2 AS A STARTING POINT AND OPTION 1 AS THE FOLLOW THROUGH FOR IT.

SO, MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE WOULD THIS IDENTIFICATION AND DESIGNATION LIMIT OR HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE POTENTIAL FUTURE USE OF THE SITE ITSELF SHOULD THEY DECIDE TO CHANGE THEIR USE ALTOGETHER? AND I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE LIVING EARTH DECIDES THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT ANYMORE, BUT THEY WANT TO BUILD APARTMENTS OVER THERE.

WOULD THE LABELING ON THE MAP AS A USE, AND THE BRACKETING OFF OF THE 1000FT AROUND THAT HAVE ANY SORT OF NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE POSSIBLE FUTURE USES OF THOSE AREAS.

NOT IN REGARDS TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

IT MAY BE DURING THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE. IT WOULD.

BUT IF SOMEONE WERE TO CEASE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE ON A SITE, IT WOULD BE REMOVED.

WE'RE ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT SITES THAT ARE PRODUCING, AGAIN, NOISE AND ODOR AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

PLANO IS OVERWHELMINGLY QUIET AND RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE PARKS, AND THERE'S NOT A LOT OF THESE SITES IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT LITTLE DONUTS EVERYWHERE.

BUT WE WOULD REMOVE THE SITE FROM HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE IF IT WERE TO CEASE.

AND THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY LAST QUESTION IS, ONCE IT IS CEASED, IS THERE A TIME FRAME AS FAR AS HOW LONG IT TAKES TO BE REMOVED OR CHANGED, OR DOES IT HAPPEN AUTOMATICALLY? I BELIEVE IT WOULD HAPPEN AS SOON AS THE USE CEASES.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR ENFORCEMENT WOULD LOOK LIKE FOR THAT IF WE WOULD GO LOOK AT IT.

IF, YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAVE TO REMOVE ALL THE ROCKS FROM THE PILES FOR THE CEMENT, I'M NOT SURE THAT'S A QUESTION THAT WE WOULD NEED TO EXPLORE FURTHER.

BUT EVENTUALLY IT WOULD CEASE. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW HOW SOON IT WOULD BE.

IT WOULD BE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. YEAH, I WOULD THINK THAT JUST THE SUCCESSION OF THE ACTIVITY WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME KIND OF, AS YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, SOME KIND OF CLEANUP TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ENVIRONMENTALLY HANDLED THE AREA SO THAT IF WE WANTED TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL BE A USE BACK IN ONE OF THOSE AREAS.

SO PART OF THE REASON, I THINK WHY STARTING WITH OPTION 2 AND THEN GOING TO OPTION 1 ALLOWS US THAT FLEXIBILITY SO THE STAFF CAN MAKE SOME OF THOSE DETERMINATIONS AND DECISIONS.

BEYOND THE STARTING POINT OF SAYING LET'S DO THESE INITIAL LOCATIONS, AND THEN WE'LL DO EVERYTHING ELSE BY A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

SO THAT'S KIND OF THAT'S MY TAKE. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.

I WAS JUST GOING TO KIND OF GIVE MY THOUGHTS AND OPINION AS WELL.

JUST KIND OF REITERATE WHAT COMMISSIONER BRONSKY HAD MENTIONED.

I DO THINK THE, THE, THE MAP IS, IS A GOOD WAY TO GO.

THESE SIX SITES DO MAKE SENSE. THE DEFINITION DOES MAKE SENSE AS FAR AS USES GO, AS WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN.

PER STATE LAW. I DO THINK WE SHOULD MAKE SURE WE CONSIDER USES.

I AGAIN, I DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE WHOLE CITY MAP AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT EVERY SINGLE SITE, BUT FOR AN EXAMPLE THAT I PROVIDED WITH THE TRANSFER STATION EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL AND THEY MAY NOT BE ANY COMPLAINTS NOW, I DO THINK SOMETHING, THOSE KIND OF SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT STARTING MAP.

AS HAVING A BUFFER AROUND IT TOO. BUT THEN ALSO GOING FORWARD, I DO THINK WE SHOULD EXPLORE A DEFINING HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE AND WHAT THOSE COULD BE THAT COULD THEN BE USED FOR FUTURE AND UNDERSTANDING SO THAT, YOU KNOW, IT MAKE IT EASIER ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

SO YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO TEST THE CIDER OR THEM COME IN AND, AND THEY WAIT A YEAR.

[00:45:01]

LET'S HAVE A USE DEFINED. SO GOING IN WE KIND OF SAY OKAY CONCRETE PLANTS OKAY.

THAT'S A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE. THAT'S A CATEGORY THAT'S, CLEARLY DEFINED.

SO GOING FORWARD YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT, WE HAVE TO KIND OF PICK AND CHOOSE OR DECIDE LATER AFTER THE COMPLAINTS THAT WE ACTUALLY KIND OF HAVE THE USE DEFINED.

DEFINE WELL. SO THAT WOULD BE MY DIRECTION OKAY.

COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. MY DIRECTION WOULD BE TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE IT, BUT WITH AN ADDITIONAL PROVISION THAT SAYS THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO RENDER ANY EXISTING PROPERTY USE IN VIOLATION OF THEIR CURRENT ZONING.

OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION, REAL QUICK. AND THEN COMMISSIONER OLLEY, I'LL GET TO YOU.

I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT EVERYTHING. I AGREE WITH THE USES.

I AGREE WITH THE DEFINITION CONCEPT. MY QUESTION WOULD BE IF WE'RE GOING TO DEFINE TODAY BASED ON A MOMENT IN TIME, ALL THESE USES THAT ARE OUT THERE TODAY, MOVING FORWARD SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR FROM NOW, IF HOW ARE WE GOING TO, IS SOMEBODY GOING TO BE MONITORING ON A COMPLAINTS BASIS THAT WE'VE GOT A NEW SITE THAT IS DOING SOMETHING THAT WE WEREN'T AWARE OF, OR THAT'S CHANGED ITS SYSTEM, AND NOW IT'S CONSIDERED NOXIOUS? HOW DO WE SHORT OF HAVING A ZONING CASE THAT COMES IN NEXT DOOR, AND THEN THE STAFF HAS TO GO OUT AND MONITOR IT OR CHECK IT.

HOW ARE WE GOING TO KNOW IF SOME OF THESE SITES COME OR GO OVER TIME? IS THERE, HAVE WE THOUGHT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF WHAT THE MOVING FORWARD PROCESS LOOKS LIKE? YEAH, I THINK THE WHAT IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN PRACTICE IS SOMEONE WILL COME IN ON AN ADJACENT PROPERTY AND WE'LL LOOK AND SEE THAT THAT USE IS NO LONGER THERE OR OH, THERE'S A USE THAT WE MISSED. IT'S THERE.

SO WE NEED TO THEN APPLY THESE RULES. IT'S THE ENFORCEMENT IS REALLY GOING TO BE AT THE PRE-APPLICATION MEETING WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.

COMES IN WITH THEIR PROJECT TO DO AN SB 840 USE.

THEN YOU'LL LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING USES AT THAT POINT, JUST LIKE YOU DO NOW WITH SURROUNDING USES WHEN YOU DO YOUR CASE ANALYSIS.

CORRECT, THE MAP GIVES US A STARTING PLACE. RIGHT.

GIVES THE PUBLIC SOME, THE DEVELOPERS, SOME FOREWARNING THAT THESE SITES HAVE ALREADY BEEN IDENTIFIED, BUT THERE MAY BE OTHERS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.

COMMISSIONER OLLEY MORE OF A LEGAL QUESTION. I'M.

REMEMBERING FROM THE DRONE BUSINESS. OPERATOR.

WE COULDN'T NECESSARILY REGULATE OPERATIONS WHICH IT KIND OF FEELS LIKE WE'RE ALMOST PLAYING AND TRYING TO DO A LITTLE BIT QUIET HERE. SO, FOR INSTANCE, DRONES TAKING OFF AND LANDING, THAT'S NOXIOUS NOISE. DO WE PUT THAT AS EVERY INDUSTRIAL USE, FOR INSTANCE, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE TREADING INTO OPERATIONS.

YEAH, AND I THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR CONTEXT, WE'RE OKAY WITH DOING THAT BECAUSE OF THE CRITERIA THAT THE STATE LAW PUT OUT FOR US.

THEY'RE BASICALLY ALLOWING CITIES TO CREATE BUFFERS IN ORDER TO, TO PROTECT RESIDENTS FROM THESE PARTICULAR THINGS.

AND SO IN THIS INSTANCE, WE ARE ALLOWED TO LOOK AT THEIR OPERATIONS.

WE WERE NOT ALLOWED IN THAT DRONE INSTANCE. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD SPECIFICALLY PREEMPTED US.

THEIR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PREEMPTED US, BUT NOW STATE LAW HAS GIVEN US.

THE POWER TO DO IT. OKAY. YES. I'D ALSO ADD IT'S NOT THAT, IT'S JUST THAT IT'S LOUD.

IT ALSO HAS TO BE A STORAGE, PROCESSING OR MANUFACTURING USE.

SO, YOU KNOW, BASEBALL FIELDS OR RECREATION CENTERS CAN BE LOUD.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE THEM A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE. IT'S NOT THE NOISE ITSELF. IT'S THE NOISE IN COMBINATION WITH THE STORAGE, PROCESSING OR MANUFACTURING. OKAY.

SO LET ME SEE IF I CAN SUMMARIZE. WHAT I'VE HEARD THE COMMISSION SAY IS THE USES THAT YOU HAVE LISTED.

I THINK WE ALL AGREE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE MAP TODAY? CORRECT, WE'RE SEEKING DIRECTION ON THESE USES, YES.

YEAH. AND I THINK I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S OBJECTED TO ANY OF THESE AS NOT BEING A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE UNLESS I MISREAD ANYBODY.

AND MOVING FORWARD, IF A NEW ONE IS IDENTIFIED OR IF A NEW ONE IS SUSPECTED, OR IF A NEW ONE IS REPORTED, THE DEFINITION THAT YOU PUT UP ON THE SCREEN FROM 840 WOULD BE USED TO EVALUATE IT.

[00:50:04]

AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO THINK WE WOULD FIND ALL OF THESE USES AND KEEP TRACK OF THEM AS BEST AS WE CAN.

UNDERSTOOD, YEAH. BUT I THINK MR. BELL MADE THE ARGUMENT THAT AS THE CASE COMES IN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAND USE AROUND IT, THEN YOU WOULD USE THE DEFINITION TO EVALUATE THE SURROUNDING LAND USE.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GO OUT THERE LOOKING FOR IT, DRIVING EVERY STREET IN THE CITY LOOKING FOR IT. BUT IF A CASE COMES IN THAT IT LOOKS LIKE MIGHT HAVE AN ISSUE NEXT DOOR, THEN YOU'LL USE THE DEFINITION OF 840 TO DEFINE IT OR NOT.

CORRECT, YES. DEFINITION, YES. COMMISSION, IS THAT A GOOD SUMMARY OF KIND OF WHERE EVERYBODY IS? OKAY. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF THUMBS UP, YOU GOOD? WELL, DOES THAT ADEQUATELY PROTECT EXISTING USES? THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN. IT DOESN'T REALLY. THE WAY I'M UNDERSTANDING IT IS, IT DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT EXISTING USE AT ALL.

IT'S ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY HAS RIGHTS UNDER 840 OR NOT BASED ON A NEIGHBOR'S USE.

CORRECT. BECAUSE THE USE ITSELF ISN'T BEING IMPACTED.

IT'S THE NEIGHBORS NEXT DOOR THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE RIGHTS UNDER SENATE BILL 840, DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR HAS A NOXIOUS USE.

YES. AN APPLICANT. SORRY. NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S THE INTENT.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF DEFINING SOMEBODY OUT OF THEIR ZONING.

THAT'S THE ONLY THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE. YEAH, BUT IT'S NOT ABOUT, IT'S NOT DEFINING ANYBODY OUT OF ZONING.

IT'S ONLY DEFINING SOMEBODY OUT OF USE BY RIGHT UNDER 840, THEIR ZONING WOULD STILL BE THEIR ZONING.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT ADEQUATE DIRECTION FOR IT.

CLEAR AS MUD. GO BY THE LAND USE. GO BY THE LAND USE.

GOT IT RIGHT. NOT THE ZONING. YES. AND THEN, WHEN IN DOUBT, LOOK AT THE DEFINITION.

ABSOLUTELY, AND ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME TODAY? I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER LIGHTS ON. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

GOOD JOB. GOOD NIGHT. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING? NO, SIR. ALL RIGHT, THEN, WE STAND ADJOURNED AT 6:52 P.M.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF FOR JOINING US.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.