[2.D. Briefing - Proposed Unified Development Code (UDC) text amendment to update standards related to exterior design, landscape variances, and billboards]

RIGHT NATHAN I'M ASSUMING IT'S NEXT. ALL RIGHT. THERE'S A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT LATER AS AN ACTION ITEM. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS BEEN REVIEWING SOME PARTS OF OUR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OVER SEVERAL MEETINGS. BUT THIS WILL BE THE FIRST TIME FOR YOU TO SEE THIS. SO I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A BRIEFING FIRST BEFORE YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TO ACT LATER IN THE MEETING. BUT IT WAS PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON OUR EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN STANDARDS. THOSE ARE FOUND IN SECTION 9.5 OF THE UDC.

IT INCLUDES REGULATIONS ON EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS, INCLUDES BUILDING ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NON RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY. AND IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR, ARTICULATION REFERS TO THE WAY A BUILDING'S EXTERIOR IS DESIGNED TO CREATE VISUAL INTEREST AND BREAK UP LARGE, FLAT SURFACES. SO THIS A COMMON WAY TO DO THIS IS KIND OF OFFSETS IN THE WALLS OF THE BUILDINGS. IT CAN BE MULTIPLE BUILDING MATERIALS, A VARIETY OF FEATURES LIKE THAT. YOU AS COUNCIL ARE FAMILIAR WITH SOME OF THIS BECAUSE SOME, SOME RECENT VARIANCES THAT CAME BEFORE YOU RELATED TO THE MINIMUM SIX FOOT OFFSET FOR WALLS GREATER THAN 100FT LONG. SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WE STARTED KIND OF DIGGING INTO TO THESE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. AS I THINK YOU'RE ALSO AWARE,

[00:20:04]

THE STATE STATUTE NOW PREEMPTS REGULATION OF BUILDING MATERIALS. AND SO MANY STANDARDS IN THAT SECTION ARE NOW UNENFORCEABLE IF THEY'RE RELATED TO BUILDING MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS. BUT THERE IS A SECTION IN THERE WITH ITS DESIGN ELEMENT POINT SYSTEM AND STARTED KIND OF BRAINSTORMING AND THINKING, MAYBE WE COULD MODIFY THIS TO INCLUDE MATERIALS IN IT. WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRING THEM, BUT WE'RE ENCOURAGING THEM BY. THIS IS A SYSTEM OF DIFFERENT ELEMENTS YOU CAN GET POINTS FOR. AND YOU HAVE TO GET A CERTAIN NUMBER OF POINTS BASED ON THE SIZE AND TYPE OF BUILDING. SO IF YOU INCLUDE MASONRY IN THERE, WE CAN HAVE SOME POINTS FOR THAT AND ENCOURAGE ITS USE, BUT NOT REQUIRE IT. ALSO WANTED TO EVALUATE THE BUILDING ARTICULATION STANDARDS AND PARTICULAR BASED ON THOSE RECENT VARIANTS CASES. AND ALSO IN LOOKING AT WE NOTICE THAT THE VARIANCE PROCESS TO THAT SECTION DIDN'T ACKNOWLEDGE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. ALL ALTHOUGH ALL THE VARIANCES GO ALONG WITH THE SITE PLAN, APPROVAL PROCESS. AND SO WE JUST WANTED TO SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE THAT IN THERE. THEY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON IT. THEN IT COMES TO TOWN COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL. AND THEN THERE'S SOME STANDARDS THAT WERE A LITTLE CONFUSING AND UNCLEAR AND JUST WANTED TO CLEAN CLEAN THOSE UP. JUST GET INTO A LITTLE MORE DETAILS ON A COUPLE OF THESE ITEMS. AND BUILDING ARTICULATION. SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR UNCLEAR, ESPECIALLY FOR THE FACADES UNDER 100FT IT REFERENCES ARTICULATION MUST BE PROVIDED, BUT IT DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY SPECIFICS ON HOW. AND THEN ALSO, THERE'S A BIG JUMP IN THE STANDARDS ONCE YOU GET OVER 100FT LONG ON ANY WALL THERE'S. SO YOU GO FROM NO SPECIFIC AMOUNT UP TO SIX FEET OF AN OFFSET REQUIRED. BUT IT WASN'T SPECIFIC ON WHETHER THAT WAS VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL. WHICH ONE COUNTED, WAS IT BOTH. SO THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE OF SOME OF THE THINGS WE WANTED TO TO CLEAN UP AND CLARIFY. HERE'S A LOOK AT THAT DESIGN ELEMENTS POINT SYSTEM. SO YOU CAN SEE IT INCLUDES THINGS LIKE PORCHES AND PITCHED ROOFS AND COVERED WALKWAYS, AWNINGS, CANOPIES AND VARIED ROOF HEIGHTS AND ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. SO THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE. AND NOW WE'RE PROPOSING ADDING SOME BUILDING MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS MASONRY, WHICH CAN CAN ADD TO THE POINT SYSTEM. AND THIS IS FOR OFFICE AND RETAIL AND OFFICE. YES. THIS IS NOT FOR FOR RESIDENTIAL AND IT'S NOT FOR ANY INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS OVER 10,000FT■!S. SO THE THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE IN YOUR IN YOUR PACKET TO BE ACTED ON LATER AT THIS MEETING. BUT IN SUMMARY, THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THAT SECTION 9.5 ARE TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF MASONRY AND SECONDARY MATERIALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN REQUIREMENTS, SO THOSE TOWN REQUIREMENTS STAY IN THERE.

ALTHOUGH WE CAN'T REQUIRE THEM, WE ARE ENCOURAGING THEM BY ADDING THAT TO THE DESIGN ELEMENTS. POINT SYSTEM. ALSO, UPDATING THE BUILDING ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS TO REDUCE THE NEED FOR VARIANCES WHILE ALSO ENCOURAGING QUALITY DESIGN WHICH INCLUDES ARTICULATION. SO ONE WAY WE DID THIS, WE DID SOME RESEARCH ON WHAT OTHER CITIES KIND OF THOSE OFFSET REQUIREMENTS ARE. THE SIX FEET IS THE LARGEST WE FOUND. FOUR FEET WAS THE NEXT HIGHEST. ABOUT TWO FEET WAS KIND OF THE AVERAGE. SO WE SET THAT AS A STANDARD TWO FEET.

BUT WE INCLUDED IN THAT DESIGN ELEMENT POINT SYSTEM. IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING OVER FOUR FEET YOU GET EXTRA POINTS FOR THAT. AND SO THE THE ENTIRE DESIGN ELEMENTS POINT SYSTEM WAS, WAS UPDATED TO ADDRESS THOSE, THOSE ITEMS AND THE TOTAL NUMBERS YOU NEED TO ACHIEVE. AND THEN FINALLY INCLUDED THE SPECIFICATION OF THE NTSB'S ROLE IN VARIANCES. AND WHILE WE'RE AT IT AND HAD UDC AMENDMENTS PROPOSED, THERE ARE A COUPLE OTHER CLEANUP ITEMS WE DISCUSSED INCLUDED IN THIS. THIS NEXT ONE IS TO OUR LANDSCAPING AND TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS ANOTHER ONE THAT DIDN'T INCORPORATE THE ROLE OF PNC AND RECOMMENDING

[00:25:02]

ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR LANDSCAPE PLANS. KIND OF A VARIANCE AS WELL. SO PNC WASN'T INCLUDED IN THESE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN THE PNC WAS CREATED FAIRLY RECENTLY AND ADDED INTO THIS PROCESS. SO WE WANT TO EXPLICITLY INCLUDE THEM IN THERE. AND ALSO PROVIDE FOR A FEE IN LIEU OF TREE PLANTING OPTION. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP WITH SOME SOME RECENT LANDSCAPE VARIANCES. THERE ARE SOME CONSTRAINTS WITH SEVERAL EASEMENTS AND UTILITIES. AND IN IN PAST SITUATIONS THERE'S BEEN APPROVALS WHERE THE SAME AMOUNT OF TREES HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO BE ON OTHER PARTS OF THE THE PROPERTY. AND THAT WORKS IN A LOT OF CASES AND CAN BE CONTINUED TO BE AN OPTION. BUT IN SOME CASES IT MAY JUST BE VERY DIFFICULT TO FIT IT ON THE SITE AND REALLY HAVE THE DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU DESIRE ON IT AT THE SAME TIME. SO THIS PROVIDES JUST AN EXTRA OPTION AND IT'LL IT'LL SET A SPECIFIC FEE, REFERENCE A FEE IN THE IN THE FEE SCHEDULE, WE'LL BRING THAT FEE AND AMENDMENT TO THE FEE SCHEDULE BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING. BUT THAT WAY A FEE COULD BE PAID, AND THAT COULD GO INTO A FUND THAT'S DEDICATED TO LANDSCAPING AND BEAUTIFICATION PROJECTS THAT CAN BE USED BY THE TOWN. AND THEN FINALLY, THERE'S AN UPDATE TO THE BILLBOARD PLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND THE THE SIGN SECTION OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND THIS IS SPECIFICALLY TO KIND OF TO SPECIFY THE DISTANCE FROM TOWN LIMITS BOUNDARY. THERE'S A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT. YOU HAVE TO BE WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THE TOWN LIMITS TO BE ABLE TO PLACE A BILLBOARD, BUT THAT WAS REALLY INTENDED TO BE LOCATED AT ENTRANCES OR EXITS TO THE TOWN. AND OUR LIMITED ACCESS HIGHWAYS 35 AND 114 ARE THOSE. THERE ARE A COUPLE AREAS WHERE LIKE 35 W RUNS RIGHT ALONG THE TOWN LIMITS LINE. IT WASN'T INTENDED TO OPEN UP THAT ENTIRE CORRIDOR TO TO HAVE HAVE BILLBOARDS. SO THERE'S A PROPOSED FIX FOR THAT AND ALSO AN UPDATE TO THE DISTANCE AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS TO TO OTHER BILLBOARDS SO THAT THE EXISTING SIGNS THAT WE HAVE AS BEST POSSIBLE ARE CONFORMING WHILE REDUCING THE POTENTIAL PROLIFERATION OF MORE BILLBOARDS. AND JUST TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE, THIS IS DOWN IN THE ONE 1435 W AREA. IT WAS RED DOTS ARE EXISTING BILLBOARD LOCATIONS, SO THE MEASUREMENTS TO THE TOWN LIMITS WOULD BE FROM WHERE THOSE HIGHWAYS CROSS THE TOWN LIMITS LINE WHERE TRAFFIC ON THOSE OTHER HIGHWAYS CROSSED. SO THOSE RED ARROWS ARE POINTING TO THAT WHERE THAT WOULD BE MEASURED FROM. AND THEN THE BLUE ARROWS ARE THE, THE DISTANCE FROM, FROM OTHER SIGNS. SO THAT'S WHAT THESE UPDATES ARE, ARE TO APPLY TO. YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON BILLBOARDS IN THE ACTUAL TEXT THAT WE ARE MODIFYING HERE. THERE IS ONE THAT I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT. THERE IS AN EXISTING EXISTING STATEMENT UNCHANGED AND 500FT FROM RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. IS THERE ANY REASON TO NOT INCREASE THAT TO MAYBE 1000FT FOR FROM RESIDENTIAL? YES, YOU COULD DO THAT. OKAY. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD AFFECT ANY OF THESE EXISTING ONES. RIGHT. SO THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT WHEN WE GET TO THIS ACTION ITEM I WANTED TO BRING UP BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF IT'S DOWN IN THE WEEDS OF THE TEXT AND SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO KEEP THOSE BILLBOARDS A LITTLE FURTHER FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL IN CASE SOMEBODY COMES AT ONE, COMES FOR ONE LATER, WE CAN HAVE A PROTECTION FOR RESIDENTIAL. ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL BE IF WE MAKE A MOTION ON THAT TONIGHT. THAT'S SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO INCLUDE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. YES. I DON'T SEE THAT POINT SYSTEM YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT. MAYBE I MISSED IT. YOU DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE THE ORDINANCE. THE ORDINANCE IS UNDER THE ACTION ITEM LATER IN THE AGENDA, BUT YOU DIDN'T SHOW IT. NOW THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. YEAH. SO HOW MANY POINTS ARE YOU LOOKING FOR? IT DEPENDS ON THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING. OKAY. SO. LET ME PULL OUT THE ORDINANCE. LET ME ASK A QUESTION A DIFFERENT WAY. HOW MANY OF THESE THINGS ARE YOU GENERALLY GOING TO HAVE TO DO? JUST A FEW

[00:30:01]

OF THEM OR NEARLY ALL OF THEM. SOME OF THEM, YEAH. I WOULDN'T SAY A FEW OR NEARLY ALL. IT'S KIND OF BETWEEN. SO WE'VE KEPT THEM ALL AS IS ADDED ARTICULATION, WHICH CAN GET YOU TWO POINTS. MASONRY CAN GET YOU FOUR POINTS, AND SECONDARY MATERIALS CAN GET YOU TWO POINTS. AND THEN WE'VE INCREASED THE THE POINT REQUIREMENTS FOR. FOR BUILDINGS LESS THAN 10,000FT■!S. WE'VE MOD THAT FROM 10 TO 15 POINTS. AND THEN BUILDINGS 10,000 TO 25,000FT■!S, 12 TO 18, 15 TO 21 POINTS FOR 25,000 TO 50,000 AND 20 TO 28 POINTS FOR 50,000 AND ABOVE. THAT'S ANSWER ENOUGH. IT LOOKS. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU HAVE TO DO ABOUT HALF OF THOSE THINGS TO GET ENOUGH POINTS. THAT'S ABOUT RIGHT. AND YOU'LL NOTICE MASONRY IS ONE OF THE HEAVIEST WEIGHTED. SO IT DOES ENCOURAGE THAT. THIS IS A VERY CREATIVE SOLUTION TO A LEGISLATIVE PROBLEM THAT WE'VE HAD. SO I APPLAUD STAFF FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. THAT'S A GREAT SOLUTION. I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF US WOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. SO GOOD JOB ON THAT.

I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT IN DOING THIS. REALLY CREATIVE AND A GOOD IDEA. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU NATHAN. OKAY, NEXT WE WILL BE MOVING ON TO OUR PUBLIC INPUT. WE DO HAVE A

[3. PUBLIC INPUT]

FEW PUBLIC HEARINGS TONIGHT. IF YOUR ITEM IS FOR THAT PUBLIC HEARING, I'D REQUEST THAT YOU HOLD THAT UNTIL THAT TIME. AND I'LL GO THROUGH THESE IN THE ORDER RECEIVED AS MR. JAMES SMITH HERE. OKAY. MR. DUDEK? I THOUGHT I SAW HIM. I'LL HOLD THAT FOR A MOMENT. I'M. MR. CALLAHAN WAS YOURS FOR THE REZONING? YES. OKAY. DO YOU MIND IF I HOLD THAT TILL THEN? THANK YOU, MR. SAVAGE. DO YOU MIND IF I HOLD? HOLD YOUR ITEM UNTIL THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, I DON'T. HAS ANYBODY ELSE SEEN MR. HE FILLED OUT A HAND.

HANDWRITTEN FORM, IF YOU HAVE ONE AS WELL. HI. MY NAME IS RENA HARDIMAN. I LIVE IN NORTHLAKE. I HOPE NO ONE TAKES OFFENSE AT THIS, BUT THIS IS JUST TO HELP YOU ALL REMEMBER OUR HISTORY. PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE INTEGRAL TO INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND ECONOMIC SUCCESS. THEY SUCCESS. THEY ENSURE INDIVIDUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACQUIRE, USE AND DISPOSE OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT UNWARRANTED GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE.

[00:35:06]

PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, MISS HARDEMAN. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TONIGHT AT THIS? ANYBODY SPEAKING FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE GRANTED TIME AT THAT TIME, SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC INPUT SESSION AND

[4. CONSENT ITEMS]

WE'LL MOVE ON TO CONSENT ITEMS TONIGHT. COUNCIL, WE HAVE THREE ITEMS ON HERE, WHICH IS THE MINUTES. THE UNIFORMS PURCHASE, WHICH IS WITHIN OUR CURRENT BUDGET, AND CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE FUTURE. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING TO PULL OR MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

I'LL SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION FROM MAYOR PRO TEM LORENZ AND A SECOND FROM MR. PIZZUTO.

[5.A. Consider approval of an Ordinance of the Town of Northlake, Texas, amending Subsection C, "Powers of the Board," of Section 3.4, "Board of Adjustment," of Chapter 9A, "Unified Development Code," and Article 4.04, "Dangerous Buildings," of Chapter 4, "Building Regulations," of the Code of Ordinances, Town of Northlake, Texas, by creating a Building and Standards Commission and authorizing the Board of Adjustment to hear and determine cases concerning violations of health and safety ordinances and dangerous and substandard buildings pursuant to Texas Local Government Code Ch. 54 and Ch. 214 - Case # 25-UDC00001 TABLED/CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 13, 2025]

MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY PASSED THE THREE CONSENT ITEMS. ALL RIGHT.

OUR ACTION ITEMS. FIRST ONE IS THE DANGEROUS BUILDINGS CHAPTER FOUR ORDINANCE. WE TABLED THIS FROM THE LAST MEETING NOVEMBER 13TH FOR ACTION. ALL COUNCILORS ASKED FOR A COPY OF THE ORDINANCE CHANGES THAT WERE REDLINED WITH COMMENTS FROM THE ATTORNEY. I THINK EVERYBODY HAS RECEIVED THOSE AND I HOPE WE HAVE READ THROUGH THOSE. MANY OF THESE UPDATES WERE PRESENTED TO MEET TEXAS LAW, BUT THESE ORDINANCES HAVE BEEN ON THE BOOKS SINCE THE UDC WAS PASSED OR PRIOR, PRIOR, PRIOR, PRIOR. NEITHER WILL GO THROUGH THAT. OKAY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO YES, THIS ORDINANCE IS TO UPDATE OUR DANGEROUS BUILDING REGULATIONS, WHICH ARE IN ARTICLE 4.04 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. THEY'VE BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE AT LEAST 1999, WHEN THAT CODE WAS CREATED. THEY'VE NEVER REALLY BEEN USED OR ENFORCED. AND ALL THAT TIME THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW SITUATIONS THAT HAVE COME UP IN THE IN RECENT YEARS THAT PRESENTED THE POTENTIAL NEED FOR THIS AS A TOOL TO TAKE CARE OF THE HELP WITH THOSE SITUATIONS. BUT IN LOOKING AT OUR ORDINANCE, WE NOTICED THERE ARE SOME UPDATES NEEDED TO REALLY FULLY UTILIZE IT. SO THESE SITUATIONS WHERE THIS THERE'S AN UNPERMITTED STRUCTURE THAT'S ALSO VIOLATING ZONING REGULATIONS. SO USUALLY IF WE FIND A STRUCTURE THAT HADN'T BEEN PERMITTED, WE WORK WITH THEM TO GET IT PERMITTED AND INSPECTED THIS ONE, THAT WOULDN'T BE POSSIBLE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. SO IT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED. SO WE'RE FORTUNATELY IN THIS SITUATION, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO GET THE RIGHT THING DONE AND GET IT REMOVED. BUT THIS IS A TOOL WE NEED TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

THERE'S ALSO EXTENDED HOME CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT WENT ON FOR FOR YEARS, PERMIT EXPIRED A COUPLE OF TIMES, FINALLY GOT RESOLVED. BUT THIS IS A TOOL THAT WE LOOKED INTO TO HELPING COMPLETE THAT, OR MAYBE EVEN TEARING IT DOWN WHEN IT WAS HALFWAY DONE. AND THEN THERE'S BEEN ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A HOME WITH SOME FIRE DAMAGE THAT TOOK A WHILE TO GET REPAIRED. AND AND THIS IS EVEN BEFORE IT GETS REPAIRED. YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S SECURED IN THIS ORDINANCE CAN MAKE SURE THAT. THAT PROPERTY IS SECURED PROPERLY. SO AT THE AT YOUR LAST COUNCIL MEETING, YOU HELD A PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THERE ARE TWO SPEAKERS OPPOSED AND YOU CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IT WASN'T CONTINUED. SO YOU DON'T NEED TO HOLD ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT. AND THIS ITEM WAS TABLED, AS THE MAYOR SAID. SO YOU COULD KIND OF BETTER EVALUATE THESE CHANGES. AND WE'VE SINCE PROVIDED KIND OF A REDLINE MARKUP OF OF THOSE CHANGES. I WANT TO DESCRIBE THOSE IN GENERAL, THE REVISIONS TO ARTICLE 4.04 ARE TO FIRST CREATE THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION, AND THAT THERE'S A REFERENCE TO A BOARD, BUT THERE IS NO BOARD THAT WAS CREATED. AND IT TECHNICALLY

[00:40:04]

SHOULD BE REFERRED TO AS THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION TO ALIGN WITH STATE LAW. I ALSO MAKES UPDATES NECESSARY TO FOLLOW STATE STATUTES AND PROVIDE SOME ENHANCEMENTS TO DUE PROCESS, AND CORRECT SOME TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. ALONG WITH THIS, THERE'S AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.4 OF THE THE UDC. THIS IS A SECTION ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, AND IT DESIGNATES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SERVE AS THAT BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION. WE THINK THIS IS SOMETHING IS GOING TO BE UTILIZED VERY INFREQUENTLY AND MAKES SENSE AND KIND OF FITS WITH THE THINGS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS DOES, BECAUSE THIS INCLUDES AN AMENDMENT TO THE UDC, IT REQUIRES THE UDC TEXT AMENDMENT PROCESS, WHICH REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARINGS AND A RECOMMENDATION FIRST. SO THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY BY PNC. PNC HEARD IT BACK ON OCTOBER 21ST, WHERE THEY HELD A PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF IT UNANIMOUSLY. AND NOW YOU'LL GET TO CONSIDER THIS AGAIN, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. AND IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, SOME OF OUR COUNSELORS HAVE MET WITH STAFF AND ASKED FOR SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO BE REINSERTED. VARIOUS POINTS, AND THAT IS BEEN MADE INTO THIS DOCUMENT. VERY GOOD. COUNCIL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THE ORDINANCES WE'VE HAD FOR A VERY LONG TIME, THIS IS CREATING SOMEWHAT OF A BOARD TO ENFORCE THE ORDINANCES THAT HAVE BEEN THERE. YES. YEAH. AND TO CLEAN UP AND MATCH UP WITH STATE STATUTES. AND THE BOARD WILL BE OF RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY COUNCIL. THAT WILL SERVE AS A ANOTHER LEVEL OF DUE PROCESS FOR THOSE THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT MAY HAVE THAT DANGEROUS BUILDING. ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES CAN YOU RECALL IN THE LAST, LET'S SAY, 3 TO 5 YEARS THAT WE'VE HAD TO USE THIS ORDINANCE, WILL YOU? WE'VE NEVER USED IT. WE'VE LOOKED INTO IT AND COULD HAVE USED IT IN THESE SITUATIONS THAT I MENTIONED. AND FORTUNATELY THEY ENDED UP GETTING RESOLVED. BUT THIS IS A TOOL THAT WE WOULD HAVE NEEDED TO REALLY TAKE CARE OF THOSE IF NOTHING WAS WAS DONE. THE EXISTING BUILDING CODES. AND OKAY, SO. I THINK YOU COULD GO AT IT BY LET'S LET'S LET DEAN WAIT JUST A SECOND. I CAN I CAN WEIGH IN ON THAT. SO THERE'S SEVERAL REMEDIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE. ONE IS A CITATION. SO FOR CRIMINAL VIOLATION MAYBE YOU DO A CITATION OR YOU DO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION. IF IT'S NOT A POLICE OFFICER YOU MIGHT DO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION. AND THOSE WOULD END UP IN MUNICIPAL COURT. THE OTHER OPTION AND AND THE FOCUS HERE IS ALWAYS ON PUBLIC NUISANCE. SO THERE'S NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE. THE PUBLIC NUISANCE THAT CAN BE ABATED BY FOLLOWING THE STATE LAW. AND THAT'S FOUND IN CHAPTER 54 OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND ALSO CHAPTER 214, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. AND SO WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE IS WE'VE ADDED THOSE STATUTES INTO YOUR ORDINANCE. SO WITHOUT THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION, THE REMEDY WOULD HAVE BEEN TO GO TO MUNICIPAL COURT FOR CRIMINAL VIOLATION. ON THE CIVIL SIDE, YOU WOULD HAVE GONE TO DISTRICT COURT. SO HERE YOU'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THESE CASES TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ACTING AS THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION. AND THEY CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION. AND SO IF SOMEONE WANTS TO APPEAL THAT DETERMINATION, THEY CAN APPEAL IT TO DISTRICT COURT. MR. IS THERE A QUESTION? I'M NOT SURE. NO OFFENSE. YEAH, BUT WE ALREADY HAVE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. WE ALREADY HAVE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. WE ALREADY HAVE CODE REQUIREMENTS THROUGH THE BUILDING CODES. PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL. YEAH. ISN'T THAT ENOUGH? SO SO THE REQUIREMENTS ARE THERE. IT'S A QUESTION OF ENFORCEMENT. SO HOW DO YOU ENFORCE THOSE REQUIREMENTS. LET'S SAY YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO NEVER WANTS TO FOLLOW YOUR ZONING CODE EVER. RIGHT. THEY BUILD A BUILDING WITHOUT ANY PERMITS AND IT'S IT'S DILAPIDATED, SUBSTANDARD, UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. IT'S A FIRE CODE VIOLATION. YOU HAVE A COUPLE REMEDIES RIGHT NOW. ONE WOULD BE TO ISSUE A CITATION OR A NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT WOULD GO TO MUNICIPAL COURT, AND THEY WOULD ONLY GET A FINE THAT WOULDN'T STOP THEM FROM

[00:45:04]

HAVING THE BUILDING. SO FOR THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS, THEY COULD PROBABLY PAY A FINE TO THE COURT AND TAKE A CRIMINAL CITATION AND PAY 250 BUCKS OR 500 BUCKS OR $1,000, WHATEVER IT IS. AND THE BUILDING WOULD STILL BE THERE. IS THAT IS THAT CLARIFY IT. THIS GIVES YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO USE. RESIDENTS IN YOUR TOWN, ACTING AS THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE WITHOUT FILING A LAWSUIT IN DISTRICT COURT TO DO IT. I KNOW AS I'VE TALKED TO PEOPLE IN, LIKE LEWISVILLE, THE MAYOR OVER THERE, HE SAID, THESE TYPES OF THINGS NOBODY LIKES TO USE AND NOBODY WANTS TO SEARCH ANYONE DOWN FOR THIS STUFF. AND THEY ALSO OFFER, ON COMPLAINT ONLY BASIS, THEIR CODE INSTRUCTOR OR CODE ENFORCEMENT GUY ISN'T GOING AROUND LOOKING FOR THESE TYPES OF THINGS, BUT WHEN THEY'RE FOUND WITHOUT WITHOUT STRUCTURE IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH THEM, IT GETS VERY EXPENSIVE. YOU HAVE TO HAVE LAWYERS UP IN DISTRICT COURT, AND IT'S BEING A LOCAL ISSUE. HE FEELS ALSO THAT IT SHOULD BE UP TO OUR LOCAL RESIDENTS OR LOCAL BOARD TO TAKE CARE OF AS WELL. SO IT WAS NICE TO GET SOME INSIGHT FROM A MUCH LARGER CITY THAN OURS WHEN I SAW HIM RECENTLY. SO THAT WAS THAT WAS KIND OF INTERESTING TO ME. AND WE'VE HAD THESE LAWS ON THE BOOKS, AND REALLY, THIS IS A CLEAN UP ACT TO APPROACH AND ADD THAT BOARD INTO THINGS. AND HELP US. IN THE RARE CASE, WE HAVE AN ISSUE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE REALLY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF OPTIONS OTHER THAN TO GO OUT TO DISTRICT COURT, IN THAT I'D RATHER KEEP THINGS LOCAL IF POSSIBLE. SO THERE WERE TWO, TWO AREAS THAT I HAD QUESTION ON ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE ONE AND I THINK DREW, WE HAD DISCUSSED AND YOU COMMENTED ON WAS THE FIRE, YOU KNOW, THE FIRE MARSHAL. AND I DON'T JUST UNDERSTAND THAT PIECE ABOUT THAT. IS THAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT 4.43 ENFORCEMENT AND THE INSPECTIONS AND ALLOWING THE FIRE MARSHAL TO BE DO PART OF THOSE INSPECTIONS, OR WE HAD PULLED IT OUT IN HERE? SURE, SURE. YEAH. SO WE DID. SO WE WE LISTEN TO YOUR COMMENT. WE ADDED THAT BACK IN. OKAY. YOU KNOW, I EMAILED YOU. YES. SO SO YOU DON'T HAVE A FIRE MARSHAL.

YOU RELY ON THE ESD. RIGHT. AND BECAUSE IT'S A IT'S A TOWN PROCESS, IT MAY BE A LITTLE AWKWARD ADMINISTRATIVELY FOR THE FIRE MARSHAL TO TRY TO JUMP INTO THE TOWN PROCESS. GOTCHA.

BUT IN THE EVENT THAT THE FIRE MARSHAL EVER DOES THAT, I MEAN, THE OPTIONS BACK IN THERE.

RIGHT. OKAY. SO THAT WOULD BE SO THAT WOULD BE IN THAT SECTION. DO WE NEED TO PROPOSE THAT BASED ON WHAT IS IN THIS TO TO HAVE THAT BACK IN OR WHAT FOR FOR FOR RIGHT NOW. YES.

OKAY. AND THEN THE SECOND IN THE MOTION. OKAY. AND THE SECOND AS PART OF THAT UNDERSTANDING IS THE 30 DAYS AS THE ISSUANCE OF ORDER. IS THAT WHERE THAT 30 DAYS WAS IN DISCUSSION? OKAY. SO SO THAT ACTUALLY TRACKS THE STATE LAW UNDER CHAPTER 214. OKAY. AND GREAT COMMENT. WE ADDED THAT BACK IN. WHAT IT SAYS IS, IS IT GIVES GUIDANCE BACK TO THE THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION. RIGHT. SO THEY UNDERSTAND THE NEXT STEPS IN THE PROCESS. THAT WAY THEY'RE NOT GOING TO STATE LAW AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT DO WE DO. RIGHT. SO YEAH, SO SO ADDING THAT BACK IN WOULD INCLUDE AND THIS IS LIKE THE PART WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT CAUGHT ME OFF GUARD OF THE TIME ALLOWED TO COMPLETE THE WORK. SHOULD YOU GET A NOTICE THAT ALLOWS THAT 30 DAYS TO COMPLETE THE WORK. AND WOULD THAT INCLUDE THEN ONE PART ONE, TWO AND THREE ALLOWING THE OWNER UP TO 90 DAYS, SHOULD THE WORK BE SO SO OKAY. YEAH. SO THERE'S A LOT OF DISCRETION FOR THE IN GENERAL THERE'S A 30 DAY REQUIREMENT, BUT THERE IS DISCRETION. THE BOARD CAN EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION AND DEPENDING ON THE FACTS, IN THE CASE OF A MORE OR LESS COMPLEX AND I AGREE LIKE IN HERE IT DOES SAY THE SCOPE OR COMPLEXITY OF THE WORK BASED ON AND DISCRETION ON THAT. SO AND THAT'S THE THAT'S REPEATING THE STATE LAW OKAY. WHERE THAT'S COMING FROM. OKAY. WE HAVE ACTUALLY UTILIZED THAT DISCRETION BEFORE WITH THE HOME THAT WAS INCOMPLETE. AND WE GAVE EXTRA TIME ABOVE AND BEYOND WHEN THAT TO EXTEND THE BUILDING PERMIT THINGS LIKE THAT. SO VERY GOOD COMMENTS.

JOSH, THANK YOU FOR INCLUDING SOME OF THOSE. AM I CORRECT THAT WE EVEN SAY SOMETHING ABOUT CUTTING WEEDS? BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT CUTTING WEEDS, OR WE'RE GOING TO TELL FARMERS THEY CAN'T GROW HAY. GOOD BACK TO YOU SINCE. SO I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO A SECTION OR IT'S 23. YOU GET TO IT REAL QUICK. THAT'S 4.04.004. AND THEN IT'S

[00:50:18]

PARAGRAPH 23. AND WE'RE GOING TO VOTE LATER ON ENCOURAGING AG PROPERTIES. BUT WE HAVE THINGS IN THIS THAT DIRECTLY ARE AGAINST SOMEBODY THAT'S FARMING THIS IDEA. I MEAN THERE'S STILL RATS ALL OVER EVERYBODY'S PASTURE. SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO. SO THIS IS SPECIFIC IF YOU GO BACK TO 18 FOR A DWELLING. SO THIS IS A DWELLING OKAY. THEN DO WE SAY THAT. DO WE MAKE IT VERY PLAIN THAT THIS DOES NOT COUNT. PEOPLE WHO ARE IN AG USE THIS SPECIFIC THE ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, VEGETATION, JUNK, DEAD ORGANIC MATTER, DEBRIS, GARBAGE, AWFUL RAT GARBAGES, STAGNANT WATER, COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS AND SIMILAR MATERIALS AND CONDITIONS ON APPRENTICES. THE PREAMBLE IS WHENEVER A BUILDING USE OR INTENDED TO BE USED FOR DWELLING PURPOSE BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE MAINTENANCE, DILAPIDATION, DECAY, DAMAGE, FAULTY CONSTRUCTION OR ARRANGEMENT, INADEQUATE LIGHT AIR SANITATION FACILITIES OTHERWISE. SO THIS IS FOR ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF. I SAID FOR A A RESIDENCE, SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LIVE IN. SO THAT'S OKAY. IT IS CONNECTED.

YES, SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCIL, I APPRECIATE THE DEEP DIVE INTO THIS AND ALL OF YOUR THOUGHT AND CONSIDERATION. I KNOW WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME BECAUSE I DO, YOU KNOW, AND I WANT TO APPRECIATE THE THE LINE ITEM THAT WAS PROVIDED SO THAT WE CAN SEE WHAT WAS CHANGED AND OR, YOU KNOW, PULLED OUT OR PUT IN. AND YOU KNOW WHAT? I DID NOTICE AND WAS ABLE TO LOOK THROUGH HERE VERY, VERY DEEPLY IS UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WERE YOU KNOW, I THINK I COMMENTED TO SOME OF THE STUFF HERE WAS NOT NECESSARILY ADDED IN A LOT OF AREAS. IT WAS MOVED FROM ONE SECTION OF THE OF THE OF THIS TO ANOTHER TO, LIKE YOU SAID, CLEAN IT UP. THERE WERE A FEW THINGS THAT DID HELP US CLARIFY SOME THINGS THAT WERE JUST UNKNOWN, BUT VERY SPECIFICALLY, YOU KNOW, AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, THE TWO ITEMS THAT, YOU KNOW, I SAW THAT DID CAUGHT ME OFF GUARD, THAT SO IF ANYONE DOES PROPOSE OR WOULD PUT A MOTION THAT I WOULD WANT TO HAVE THOSE TWO PIECES PUT BACK IN, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE 30 DAY NOTICE, AND I CAN GET THE EXACT THINGS HERE BEFORE, UNLESS I THINK IF YOU JUST REFERENCE IT, WE WILL. WE KNOW THAT YOU RECEIVED HERE, EMAILED A COPY OF THAT AMENDMENT AND IT'S IN THE DRAFT.

[5.A. VOTE]

OKAY. OKAY. COUNCIL WITH THAT. DO I HAVE ANY MOTIONS? I'LL MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE AMENDMENTS OF THE 30 DAY NOTICE TO BE PUT BACK IN ITEMS ONE, TWO AND THREE, AS WELL AS THE FIRE MARSHAL ABILITY TO BE AN INSPECTOR SHOULD THAT BE NEEDED? I'LL SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION FOR MR. PROSCIUTTO AND SECOND, FOR MAYOR PRO TEM LAWRENCE. WE WILL VOTE. MOTION CARRIES 4 TO 2. THANK YOU, COUNCIL, FOR ALL OF THE DISCUSSION AND DEEP THOUGHT PUT INTO THIS ONE. IT'S

[5.B. Consider approval of an Ordinance of the Town of Northlake, Texas, amending Section 9.5, Exterior Construction and Design Standards, Section 9.10, Landscaping and Tree Protection, and Section 11.18, [Sign] Definitions and Requirements, of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to update standards related to exterior design, landscape variances, and billboards - Case # 25-UDC00002]

MUCH APPRECIATED. NEXT ITEM IS CONSIDER APPROVAL ORDINANCE ON NORTH LAKE MODIFYING EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN STANDARDS, LANDSCAPING AND LANDSCAPING AND TREE PROTECTIONS. THE THINGS THAT NATHAN JUST BRIEFED US ON A LITTLE BIT AGO. YES, THIS IS JUST YOUR CHANCE TO ACT ON IT NOW. I WON'T GO BACK THROUGH IT, BUT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID HEAR THIS AT THEIR NOVEMBER 18TH MEETING. THEY HELD A PUBLIC HEARING OR NO SPEAKERS FOR OR AGAINST, AND THEY UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED. AND TONIGHT YOU'LL NEED TO FIRST HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING. AND AFTER THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO TAKE ACTION ON IT.

OKAY. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE PUBLIC HEARING, SEEING NONE, IT IS 6:24 P.M. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE PREVIOUSLY FILLED OUT FORM FOR THIS. YOU MAY RAISE YOUR HAND, COME UP TO THE PODIUM. OKAY, SEEING NONE TO SPEAK, I WILL CLOSE THE

[00:55:03]

PUBLIC HEARING AT 625. ON THIS ITEM. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I WOULD MAKE A

[5.B. VOTE]

MOTION, BUT ALSO TO INCLUDE 11.1 11 SECTION 11 B BILLBOARDS TO INCREASE THE DISTANCE FROM A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO 1000FT. CAN I AMEND THAT IN ANY WAY? OR HOW DO WE DO THAT? LET ME HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS. SO MY QUESTION NOT ON ON THAT ONE SPECIFICALLY, BUT I KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET A FEE SCHEDULE OF WHAT FOR THE TREE DIAMETER. AND THIS PIECE IS PART OF AN AMENDMENT. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SPECIFICALLY PUT HERE FOR THAT THE FEE IN LIEU OF TREE PLANTING OPTION, THAT THAT GOES SPECIFICALLY TO A FUND THAT IS FOR THAT USE FOR TOWN USE, NOT JUST A GENERAL. THAT'S THE INTENT. SO THAT'D BE FINE. IT'D BE A FINE. OKAY.

AMENDMENT TO YOUR I WILL ADD THAT TO MY MOTION TO MAKE SURE IT'S A SPECIFIC FUND THAT IS ONLY USED FOR TREES AND LANDSCAPING. I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION FROM MYSELF AND A SECOND FROM MR. PROSCIUTTO. MY FINANCE DIRECTOR IS NOT LISTENING. HE HATES ADDING NEW FUNDS, BUT HE'LL. HE'LL JUST HAVE TO. SORRY, JOHN. OH. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY, 6 TO 0. THANK YOU. COUNCIL. AND THAT THAT WAS REALLY STEMMED FROM ALL THE DISCUSSION AT THE CVS AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS THAT WE HAD VARIANCES ON. SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD MOVE FORWARD. AND ONCE AGAIN, STAFF GREAT, GREAT WORK COMING FORWARD WITH A WAY TO HELP WITH THE BUILDING MATERIALS BECAUSE THAT ONE'S WE'VE BEEN STRUGGLING WITH FOR A LITTLE BIT. SO AND THESE ARE JUST ALL TOOLS THAT WILL GO THROUGH PNC AND THROUGH YOU. SO IT'S STILL

[5.C. Consider approval of an Ordinance of the Town of Northlake, Texas, approving a zoning change from RR – Rural Residential to AG - Agricultural for generally all RR zoned properties larger than 20 acres - Case # 25-ZCA00003]

YOUR DISCRETION ON HOW YOU WANT TO USE THESE ADDITIONAL TOOLS. OKAY. OUR NEXT ITEM TONIGHT IS ORDINANCE TOWN NORTH LAKE FOR ZONING CHANGE FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO AGRICULTURAL.

FOR GENERALLY ZONED PROPERTIES LARGER THAN 20 ACRES. ALL RIGHT. SO BACK IN OCTOBER OF 2022, COUNCIL APPROVED AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE AG ZONING DISTRICT. IT BECAME THE DEFAULT ZONING FOR ANY NEWLY ANNEXED PROPERTY. BUT SO FAR, THAT'S ALL THAT'S BEEN. THAT'S HAD THAT ZONING DISTRICT APPLIED TO IT, JUST DISCUSSED OPTIONS TO REZONE PROPERTIES THROUGH OWNER'S REQUEST OR A TOWN INITIATED PROCESS. SO WHAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH NOW IS A TOWN INITIATED PROCESS. AND IT'S BASICALLY KIND OF RESETTING THE BASE ZONING ACROSS THE TOWN TO THE LOWER LOWEST DENSITY ZONING DISTRICT, THAT AG ZONING DISTRICT. AND THIS IS ONLY TO APPLY TO THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTIES THAT ARE UNDEVELOPED AND OVER 20 ACRES.

AND INCLUDED IN THIS ARE SOME ADJACENT TRACKS UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP, WHICH ADD UP TO TO MORE THAN 20 ACRES. THIS FIRST WENT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT THEIR MEETING ON NOVEMBER 18TH. THEY HELD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUED THAT TO A MEETING ON DECEMBER 9TH. THIS TUESDAY, AND THEY HELD PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN FOLLOWING A SECOND NOTICE TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY HAD ADEQUATE NOTICE. AND IT WAS THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF IT BY A VOTE OF THREE TO 3 TO 1. AND HERE'S A LOOK OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE. THAT MAP ON YOUR RIGHT IS THE ZONING MAP. ALL THAT GREEN AREA IS WHAT'S PROPOSED TO CHANGE FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO THE AG ZONING DISTRICT MAP. ON THE LEFT IS THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, WHICH REMAINS UNCHANGED. THAT PLAN IS FOR THE FUTURE. AND JUST WANTED TO SHOW YOU HOW THOSE RELATE.

AND WE DIDN'T GET INTO DETAILS OF WHAT EXACTLY THE AG ZONING DISTRICT IS AND HOW IT COMPARES WITH THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AT OUR PNC MEETINGS. AND SOME QUESTIONS CAME UP. SO I PUT TOGETHER SOME A FEW SLIDES TO HELP SHOW WHAT THESE DISTRICTS ARE, WHAT THE DIFFERENCES ARE. ONE OF THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCES OF MINIMUM LOT SIZE 20 ACRES FOR FOR AG ZONING HAS SOME LARGER DIMENSIONS FOR THE LARGER LOTS AND LARGER SETBACKS. IT DOES

[01:00:08]

ALLOW FOR A SMALLER DWELLING UNIT WITH. THE IDEA IS THAT IT MAY NOT BE OWNER RESIDING IN THE PROPERTY. THEY MAY WANT TO STRUCTURE FOR A CARETAKER OR RANCH HAND TO LIVE IN HAS THE SAME MAX HEIGHT AS. LESS SMALLER PERCENTAGE OF MAXIMUM COVERAGE, BUT THIS MAXIMUM COVERAGE IS THE AMOUNT OF BUILDING COVERAGE, SO 15% OF 20 ACRES IS ABOUT 130,000FT■!S OF BUILDING COVERAGE. JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT THAT ALLOWS STILL. AND AS A REMINDER, OUR EXISTING UDC REQUIRES ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WITHOUT A HOME ON THE PROPERTY ARE REQUIRED TO BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF 100FT AND SHADE STRUCTURES THAT DON'T HAVE AREN'T ENCLOSED WITH WALLS ARE ALLOWED UP TO FIVE FEET FROM FROM REAR PROPERTY LINES.

THERE'S ALSO SOME ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY TO THESE DISTRICTS. ONE DIFFERENCE YOU'LL NOTICE HERE IS THAT IN RURAL RESIDENTIAL, AN ENCLOSED GARAGE IS REQUIRED WITH THE HOUSE, BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRED IN THE AG ZONING DISTRICT. GIVE A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY THERE.

AND 50 FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS ALLOWED IN THE AG ZONING DISTRICT FOR FOR STRUCTURES SUCH AS BARNS AND SILOS, AND THAT CAN EVEN BE INCREASED THROUGH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT PROCESS IF NEEDED. HERE'S A LOOK AT THE USES THAT ARE PERMITTED IN THE TWO DISTRICTS AND HOW THEY COMPARE. ONE THING YOU'LL NOTICE IS THAT KIND OF MORE INTENSIVE AG TYPE USES ARE ALLOWED IN THE AG DISTRICT, EVEN, AND EVEN THOSE WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, LIKE A LIVESTOCK AUCTION OR COMMERCIAL STABLES. AND THAT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL IS ALLOWED IN BOTH OF BOTH OF THESE. AND THEN HERE'S SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES IN OTHER USE TYPES AS WELL. SO NOW REALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS, WHY WHY IS THIS COMING TO YOU? THE IDEA IS JUST TO BETTER IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY PRESERVING LARGER LOTS. THAT WAS ONE OF THE PRIMARY GOALS OF THE PLAN IS A LARGE AREA OF TOWN THAT'S IN THE RURAL RESERVE PLACE TYPE ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, AND THIS ZONING WOULD BE THE BASE ZONING FOR THAT. RURAL RESERVE CALLS FOR MINIMUM LOT SIZES OF FIVE ACRES TO 20 ACRES. WE'VE GOT THE FIVE ACRE ZONING DISTRICT. WE DON'T HAVE A 20 ACRE ZONING DISTRICT. WE HAVE IT, BUT WE JUST DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY PROPERTY ZONED THAT. BUT EVEN EVEN WITH THESE ZONING TO TO AG, IT WOULD STILL PROVIDE FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO REZONE BACK TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL WITH THE FIVE ACRE LOT MINIMUM. OR IT COULD ALLOW FOR OPPORTUNITIES FOR FOR DEVELOPMENT AT A SIMILAR DENSITY THROUGH CLUSTERING OR CONSERVATION. THAT COULD EITHER BE DONE THROUGH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT OR THROUGH THAT CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY. IT ALSO SERVES AS A HOLDING ZONE FOR AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE RURAL RESERVE PLACE TYPE. THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION OF WHAT THAT HOLDING ZONE MEANS, BUT THAT'S REALLY TO PROVIDE A TEMPORARY OR INTERIM ZONING WITH THE LEAST DENSITY AT THIS. DOING THIS PREVENTS RAPID, UNPLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT CONFLICTS WITH THE COMP PLAN. IT DELAYS THE DEVELOPMENT UNTIL NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE IS AVAILABLE, AND THE ZONING IS MORE COMMONLY USED AS A AS A AS A HOLDING ZONE. PEOPLE UNDERSTAND ITS USE IN THAT WAY, AND IT REDUCES SOME CONFUSION OR A FALSE IMPRESSION THAT FIVE ACRE RESIDENTIAL LOTS ARE PLANNED, AND PARTICULARLY IN THE AREAS OF TOWN THAT ARE ZONED CURRENTLY ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL. BUT ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN MAY CALL FOR INDUSTRIAL AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, OR COMMERCIAL ALONG 35.

SO IN SUMMARY, THIS PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE CONFORMS WITH THE NORTH LAKE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

I THINK HELPS IMPLEMENT IT, AND THE ZONING CHANGE, AS IT'S PRESENTED IS ACCEPTABLE FOR

[01:05:04]

CONSIDERATION. AND AGAIN, AS A REMINDER, THIS HAS GONE BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT TWO MEETINGS HOLDING TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS. AND THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 3 TO 1. ON TUESDAY OF THIS WEEK. AND NOW, BEFORE YOU CAN ACT ON IT, YOU'LL NEED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING. AND ONE THING I'LL POINT OUT IS THE ACTION YOU'LL BE TAKING TONIGHT IS JUST ON CHANGING THE ZONING MAP OR THE BOUNDARIES. IT'S NOT CHANGING ANY OF THE STANDARDS FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT. THAT IS POSSIBLE. THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL STEP. SO SOME OF THE COMMENTS WE HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE PNC WERE RELATED TO SETBACK STANDARDS AND SOME OF SOME OF THE STANDARDS. SO IF THERE IF COUNCIL DOES HAVE A DESIRE TO LOOK AT THOSE AND POSSIBLY CHANGE THOSE, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD DIRECT US TO LOOK INTO. AND WE CAN BRING THAT BACK THROUGH A UDC TEXT AMENDMENT. ARE YOU SAYING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT RIGHT NOW WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE SETBACK? WELL, AS OF NOW, WE'RE WE'RE NOT WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON TONIGHT. YOU WOULD CHANGE THE SETBACK THAT APPLIES TO THESE PROPERTIES BECAUSE IT CHANGES ZONING DISTRICT. BUT IF YOU WANTED TO CHANGE THE SETBACK THAT APPLIES TO THE AG DISTRICT, THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME AT A FUTURE MEETING. THAT'S KIND OF LIKE WHEN NANCY PELOSI HAD US VOTE FOR THE, YOU KNOW, THE ACA. AFTER YOU GET THROUGH VOTING FOR IT, YOU CAN READ IT. SO COULDN'T EMOTION TONIGHT BE MADE PROVIDED THE SETBACK IS CHANGED FROM NO, IT HAS TO BE NOTICED. YEAH. IT HASN'T BEEN NOTICED FOR THAT. BEFORE YOU ALL JUMP IN, I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW REAL QUICK THAT I HAVE ALREADY DIRECTED STAFF TO COME AT OUR 1ST JANUARY MEETING, BECAUSE I'VE TALKED TO SEVERAL OF THESE PEOPLE WHO WERE AGAINST THIS. AND THE PRIMARY CONCERN WAS ESPECIALLY NOT THE FRONT SETBACK, BUT THE SIDES WERE. IN PARTICULAR, CONCERN IN THE REARS WERE IN MILD CONCERN. SO I'VE ALREADY DIRECTED STAFF TO COME BACK TO US IN JANUARY WITH AN AGENDA ITEM AND A BRIEFING AND NOTIFICATIONS THAT WE INTEND TO LOOK AT THIS AND BRING THE BRING THIS MUCH CLOSER IN LINE WITH RURAL RESIDENTIAL. SO IF PEOPLE DON'T USE THE USE OF THE THE EDGES OF THEIR PROPERTY, KEEP IN MIND IT ONLY APPLIES TO STRUCTURES WITH FOUNDATION, NOT LIKE LOAFING SHEDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT IT'S STILL IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER. SO JUST KNOW THAT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DIRECTED STAFF AND WE SHOULD SEE THAT ON A JANUARY AGENDA. MY QUESTION ON THAT, FOLLOWING UP ON MR. GAN SAID, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT THE TWO CAN BE TOGETHER AT ALL? IS THERE A WAIT TIME ON THIS? IS THERE ANY WAY THAT THEY CAN BE CONNECTED? NOT BECAUSE THE UDC IS A DIFFERENT CHANGE THAT HAS TO BE NOTICED SEPARATELY AS A CHANGE TO UDC, JUST AS WE DID IN THE DANGEROUS BUILDINGS. YES, AND THAT'LL HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FIRST. SO. SO THAT ACTION ITEM WOULDN'T GET BACK TO COUNCIL UNTIL FEBRUARY. OKAY. CAN YOU CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE ABOUT THE ACCEPTABLE USES? WHICH I THINK IT. YES. PERMITTED USES. SO UNDER AG WE'RE AT SCHOOL PRIMARY SECONDARY PUBLIC. AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG DEAN DREW IT DOESN'T FOR A IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. IT'S IN OUR STATE CONSTITUTION THAT WE PUBLICLY FUND EDUCATION FOR FOR EVERY STUDENT. PART OF THAT, IT GIVES THE CITIES A LOT OF AUTHORITY, A LOT OF PERSUASION ON WHAT THEY CAN DO. AS FAR AS BUILDINGS, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT ZONING WE HAVE, A SCHOOL CAN BUILD THEIR REGARDLESS. IS THAT CORRECT? SO YOU ARE CORRECT THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T GIVE THEM A LOT OF POWER AND AUTHORITY? TYPICALLY, THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T LOCATE AN INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL. I KNOW YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT, BUT I JUST WANT TO PUT SOME PARAMETERS ON THERE. I KNOW THERE'S AT LEAST ONE CASE SEMINOLE CASE THAT REALLY OUTLINES THE RIGHT OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO LOCATE IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. AND OF COURSE, THEY HAVE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, AND THEY HAVE SOME OTHER REGULATORY AUTHORITY WHERE THEY CAN COME IN AND AND USE THAT POWER TO ESSENTIALLY LOCATE WHERE THEY WANT. SO THERE THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS. BUT YES, YOU'RE CORRECT. THEY DO HAVE SOME CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY IN SOME CASE LAW THAT WOULD BACK THAT UP IN GENERAL. AND I JUST ASK BECAUSE I'VE BEEN GETTING QUESTIONS AND I'M SURE MAYOR MAYOR PRO TEM OVER HERE HAS GOT QUESTIONS ABOUT CERTAIN AREAS THAT ARE BEING PURCHASED AND WHAT CAN GO THERE. AND I JUST

[01:10:01]

WANT TO MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION OUT THERE THAT THIS IS NOT BEING DONE IN PARTICULAR FOR THAT. SO YEAH, THIS IS A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE CHANGE.

SO IT'S NOT PARTICULARIZED ANY PROPERTY. RIGHT? NATHAN. ANY SPECIFIC PROPERTY. OKAY. WITH THOSE POINTS I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I HAVE TWO FORMS. SO WE'LL START WITH THOSE. IT IS 6:40 P.M. WE'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING. THE FIRST FORUM I HAVE FOR THIS ITEM IS MR. CALLAHAN. YOU. MY NAME IS RAY CALLAHAN. I LIVE IN THE RIDGE. I'VE BEEN HERE FOUR AND A HALF YEARS. I LOVE THE RURAL NATURE OF NORTH LAKE, AND WITHOUT GOING THROUGH ALL THE SLIDES AGAIN, I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT. THAT'S ALL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT, I HAVE MR. SILVA. MR. MAYOR, IF I COULD, I'D LIKE TO RESERVE MY TIME TO ENJOY THE PUBLIC SPEAKERS. OKAY, THAT IS FINE. BEFORE WE CLOSE, JUST REMIND ME. ALL RIGHT. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. SHOW OF HANDS FOR WHO'S FIRST. ANYONE ELSE? I GUESS IT'S, YOU KNOW, UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO. I'D LIKE TO DEFER TO YOU. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO GO? OKAY, I WILL GO. HI, MY NAME IS RENA HARDIMAN. THIS IS A BIT OF A CONTENTIOUS TOPIC, SO IF I DO GO OVER, I'D APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION IN LETTING ME FINISH. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT. BASED ON WHAT NATHAN JUST TOLD US. MY GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWING OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINION OF MY PROPERTY TO CONTROL IT THROUGH THE EVER CHANGING COMP PLAN. OKAY, SO I'M NOT CONTROLLING MY PROPERTY, YOU'RE CONTROLLING MY PROPERTY AND YOU'RE DOING IT THROUGH THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS. SO WHERE ARE MY PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THAT? OKAY, YOU'RE FORCING ME TO LOSE THE NUMBER OF STRUCTURES I CAN PUT ON MY PROPERTY. I HAVE TO HAVE 20 ACRE MINIMUMS IN THIS NEW AG DISTRICT. I CAN'T DO FIVE LIKE I'M IN RIGHT NOW. MY SETBACKS ARE DOUBLE AND QUADRUPLE. AND YOU'RE TELLING US THAT THEY ARE, THAT YOU'RE PLANNING ON BRINGING THIS BACK AND AMENDING THIS? YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS ON COUNCIL, I ALWAYS THOUGHT, LET'S DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. WHAT'S THE URGENCY IN THIS? IF IT REALLY ISN'T ABOUT AVOIDING THE ARGYLE ISD ISSUE IN THE RIDGE, THEN WHY? WHAT'S THE URGENCY? OKAY, I WILL TELL YOU THIS. I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM SOMEONE IN NORTHLAKE, AND THEY TOLD ME THEY SPOKE WITH OUR MAYOR AND THAT HE TOLD THEM, I GUESS I HAVE TO USE THE WORD ALLEGEDLY FOR LEGAL REASONS, BUT HE TOLD THEM THAT THEY ABSOLUTELY ARE USING THIS FORCED ZONING AND THE URGENCY OF THIS TO AVOID OR TO KEEP THE ARGYLE SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM BUILDING A SCHOOL IN THE RIDGE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT FOR OUR GOVERNMENT TO TAKE ALL OF OUR PROPERTIES AND USE IT AS A PAWN TO DO SOMETHING ELSE. WE ALL KNOW THAT MR. MANCINI'S PROPERTY LOOKS OUT AND THE VIEW WOULD BE THE POTENTIAL ARGYLE ISD. SO LET ME JUST BACK UP FOR A SECOND HERE. I HAVE HEARD BOTH NATHAN AND DREW SAY BOTH OF THESE STATEMENTS. WE NEED TO DO THIS BECAUSE IT'S ON THE COMP PLAN, AND THE COMP PLAN IS JUST A SUGGESTION OR A HOLDING TYPE. OKAY. SO WHICH IS IT? ARE WE BOUND BY THE COMP PLAN? ARE WE NOT BOUND BY THE COMP PLAN? WE KEEP REFERENCING THE COMP PLAN AND WE KEEP USING THE COMP PLAN TO DEFEND THIS BASIC TAKING OF ALL THESE PEOPLE'S PROPERTY. OKAY. AND YOU'RE USING THAT TO DEFEND THIS. WHEN I HAVE HEARD FROM THESE TWO GENTLEMEN'S MOUTHS THAT IT'S JUST A SUGGESTION. OKAY. SO WE NEED TO DEFINE WHAT THAT IS, WHETHER IT REALLY IS JUST A SUGGESTION. SO WHAT Y'ALL DID IN OCTOBER OF 2022 WAS YOU TOOK AWAY. AND THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE THE CHART THAT WAS IN THE OCTOBER 13TH, 2022 PACKET. TOOK ALL THIS STUFF AWAY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL. YOU PROPOSED A NEW ONE WITH LESS AND FEWER THINGS, AND THEN YOU PUT SOME OF THOSE THINGS BACK IN, EXCEPT FOR, STRANGELY, A PUBLIC SCHOOL RIGHT THERE. IT'S ON THE CHART. SO PARDON. PLEASE WRAP UP YOUR. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO I WOULD JUST SAY PLEASE REFER TO OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, NOT A GOVERNMENT'S WISH TO MANIPULATE SOME OTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY IN THE TOWN. YOU HAD AMPLE TIME AND OPPORTUNITY TO, TO CONTROL THAT WHENEVER YOU PASS A DEVELOPER AGREEMENT IN THE RIDGE. AND I WANT TO THANK

[01:15:03]

YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. SEEING NO ONE ELSE. I BELIEVE YOU ARE. WELCOME, MR. SAVOY.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU. MY NAME IS MICHAEL SAVOIE. I LIVE AT 8132 FLORENCE ROAD. YOU HAVE A SEVERAL WRITTEN COMMENTS ABOUT THE EVENT, SO I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS. I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST IN REFERENCE TO THE HEARING THAT WAS HELD TWO DAYS AGO. THERE WERE 12 SUBMISSIONS. THERE WERE NINE PEOPLE OPPOSED, NINE SUBMISSIONS OPPOSED TO IT, THREE SUBMISSIONS IN FAVOR OF IT. THAT'S A 75% DISAPPROVAL RATE. AND I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THAT, BUT I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. THIS ORDINANCE IS AN ORDINANCE WHERE YOU, AS A CITY COUNCIL, ARE TARGETING CERTAIN CITIZENS WITHIN THE TOWN OF NORTHLAKE. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING. I MEAN, LET'S BE HONEST ABOUT IT. YOU CAN CALL IT LARGE LANDOWNERS, WHICH IS WHAT YOU DO IN THE ORDINANCE.

BUT AS NATHAN EXPLAINED ON TUESDAY, IF YOU ARE A DEVELOPER AND YOU HAVE LARGE LAND, YOU SIMPLY COME. IT'S JUST A HOLDING ZONE. YOU COME TO THE CITY, YOU CHANGE THE ORDINANCE, CHANGE THE ZONING, AND THEY GET TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. SO TAKE THEM OUT. THE TARGET IS THOSE OF US WHO LIVED IN NORTHLAKE AND HAVE LIVED HERE FOR A LONG TIME, WHO SIMPLY WANT TO LIVE ON OUR PROPERTY. WE DON'T WANT TO DEVELOP IT. WE JUST WANT TO LIVE THERE, AND WE WANT TO DO WHAT WE WANT TO DO ON OUR PROPERTY AND WHAT WE'VE HAD THE RIGHT TO DO AS LONG AS WE'VE LIVED HERE. BUT THIS ORDINANCE TAKES THAT RIGHT AWAY FROM US. YOU ARE TARGETING US AND AND IT'S NOT, HEY, YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT, BUT, HEY, WE GOT AN ORDINANCE FOR STANDARDS.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS. WHAT THIS IS IS A TARGETED ORDINANCE TARGETING A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT YOUR CITY GOVERNMENT DOES NOT WANT IN THE TOWN OF NORTHLAKE, BECAUSE THE LARGE LANDOWNERS LIKE US, THAT LAND IS VERY VALUABLE TO THE TOWN OF NORTHLAKE. IT'S LAND THAT YOU COULD BUILD ON, RIGHT? YOU COULD HAVE TAX REVENUE ON. BUT IT'S NOT BECAUSE WE HAVE IT. IN A MEETING ABOUT 5 OR 6 YEARS AGO, A PERSON STOOD UP HERE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND SAID, YOU NEED YOU CITY COUNCIL NEED TO CONDEMN MICHAEL AND RENA BECAUSE TWO PEOPLE SHOULD NEVER OWN THAT MUCH PROPERTY. THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW. I WOULD ASK YOU THIS IF YOU LOOK AT IT AND GO, LANDOWNERS, YOU KNOW, BIG LANDOWNERS, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? DO THIS. DO THIS FOR ME. REPLACE LARGE LANDOWNERS WITH BLACKS. REPLACE IT WITH HISPANICS. REPLACE IT WITH JEWS OR MUSLIMS OR LGBTQ PEOPLE. WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE PASSING THAT ORDINANCE THAT SAYS, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO TARGET THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY AND TELL THEM THAT THEY CAN'T LIVE IN THE TOWN OF NORTHLAKE ANYMORE? WE'RE NOT GOING TO TELL THEM THEY CAN'T LIVE HERE. WE'RE JUST GOING TO MANIPULATE THE ZONING SO THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO STAY ON THEIR HOME, AND THEY HAVE TO SELL IT TO SOMEONE ELSE, BECAUSE THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE, RIGHT? OR MAYBE IT'S JEWS AND MUSLIMS. MAYBE IT'S DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS. MAYBE IT'S LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES. RIGHT? YOU'RE SETTING A REALLY, REALLY BAD PRECEDENT HERE. THINK VERY CAREFULLY ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM. IF YOU WANT TO TAKE OUT THE ORDINANCE AND SAY, HEY, IF A LANDOWNER WANTS TO VOLUNTARILY BE IN THAT, FEEL FREE. THE PROBLEM HERE IS YOU DEMANDING AND SITTING THERE SAYING THAT YOU, YOU AND YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE GIVING THE RIGHT TO DREW. DREW'S AN UNELECTED PERSON. NOTHING AGAINST YOU, DREW, BUT HE'S AN UNELECTED PERSON IN THE TOWN. BUT YOU'RE GIVING DREW THE RIGHT TO COME IN AND FORCIBLY REZONE LAND. SO PLEASE APPRECIATE IT. BRIAN.

YEAH. DURING YOUR TIME AS MAYOR, I BELIEVE YOU ENACTED BLANKET ZONING AS WELL I DID. SO WHAT'S DIFFERENT TODAY? BECAUSE YOU'RE FORCING IT ON PEOPLE. YOU FORCED IT ON PEOPLE. I DID NOT FORCE IT ON PEOPLE. WE PUT ZONING OUT THERE THAT EVERYONE COULD CHOOSE. IT WAS BRIAN.

IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE LANDOWNER SAYING A DEVELOPER CAN GO IN AND CHANGE THEIR ZONING, RIGHT? ONCE AGAIN, YOU'RE PLAYING WORD GAMES HERE.

THAT'S FINE. IF YOU WANT TO PLAY WORD GAMES. I'M JUST SAYING YOU AS A CITY COUNCIL, THINK VERY CAREFULLY ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE BECAUSE EVENTUALLY YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ON THE CITY COUNCIL AND OTHER PEOPLE WILL BE, AND THEY'LL HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WHAT YOU'RE DOING TO US, TO YOU. SO JUST BE VERY CAREFUL. THANK YOU BRIAN, APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

ANYBODY ELSE FOR PUBLIC HEARING? YES, MA'AM. PLEASE COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

AND SORRY THIS IS ON SO QUICKLY. AND I KNOW MICHAEL WENT TO BE LOST. MY NAME IS MICHAEL KIDWELL AND WE HAVE THE 93 ACRES OFF HOLDER ROAD. AND WE HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY SINCE WE PURCHASED THAT PROPERTY, BEEN IMPROVING AND HAVE BEEN EXCITED TO COME HERE AND BE A PART OF

[01:20:01]

THE CITY FOR ME. I'VE BEEN ON DIFFERENT COUNCILS AND DIFFERENT BOARDS, SO MY LIFE AND IT JUST SEEMS THAT THERE'S SOME COMPONENTS THAT ARE INCONGRUENT WITH THIS, BECAUSE SAYING THAT YOU'RE GIVING US SOME ATTRIBUTES THAT CLEARLY NONE OF US ARE ASKING FOR, WE DIDN'T ASK TO GO BACK ON SOME OF THE ITEMS NOW THAT ARE BEING INCLUDED IN AG, IT'S KIND OF LIKE GIVING A KID SOMETHING AND THINKING THAT YOU'RE MAKING THEM HAPPY BY GIVING THEM CHOCOLATE ICE CREAM, AND THEY NEVER ASKED FOR CHOCOLATE ICE CREAM. THEY WANTED THE GUMMY BEARS. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR THOSE ATTRIBUTES. AND FURTHERMORE, THEN SAYING, AND I THINK IN ONE OF NATHAN'S SLIDES FOR ME, I'VE BEEN A CHAIR FOR HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL IN STATE, TEXAS. WHEN WE DO THINGS, WE DID IT RIGHT. AND WE ALSO DIDN'T DO SOMETHING WHERE I HAD TO BACKTRACK. SO ON ONE OF THE SLIDES WHERE IT SAID, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THESE THINGS FROM YOU, BUT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME BACK AND PETITION IT.

WELL, THERE'S COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AND FEES. AND FOR ME, IT'S MORE ENCUMBRANCE FOR WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TO JUMP THROUGH HOOPS. AND SO I JUST WE'VE LOVED THE IDEA OF THIS CITY WE CURRENTLY LIVE IN. KELLER I'VE GROWN UP IN THE AREA IN COLLEYVILLE. BEFORE IT WAS HOLLYWOOD, BUT WE MOVED AND BOUGHT THE PROPERTY HERE FOR A REASON WITH OUR HOME PLANS WANTING TO BE A PART OF THIS. AND IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME THAT ALL OF US AS LANDOWNERS, ARE THE VERY ONES THAT HAVE BOUGHT THE LARGE PARCELS PROPERTY TO MAINTAIN THE VERY SUBSTANCE OF WHAT IS SUPPOSEDLY BEING PROPOSED. WE'VE BEEN THE ADVOCATES AND FORGIVE ME, BUT IN THE LAST 4 OR 5 YEARS SINCE WE BOUGHT OUR LAND, I JUST FIND IT VERY RICH THAT WE'RE NOW BEING TOLD THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE COMPONENTS, THAT WE'RE NOT GOOD STEWARDS OF WHAT WE HAVE, WHEN WE CLEARLY SEE HOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS HAVE EXPONENTIALLY GROWN. AND I'M NOT AGAINST GROWTH BY ANY MEANS, BUT I FIND IT IRONIC THAT MOST OF THESE ENCUMBRANCES THAT ARE BEING TALKED ABOUT PLACE WILL BE ON THE VERY PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN GOOD STEWARDS AND HAD THESE COMPONENTS WITHIN THE CITY. SO I JUST APPRECIATE, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR WHAT YOU'RE WANTING TO GIVE. AND IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME THAT IF Y'ALL ARE SAYING THAT THERE AREN'T ADDITIONAL CHANGES THAT WOULD AFFECT THE CITY, THAT THIS IS JUST A PLAY ON POSITION WORDS FUNDS. I MEAN, WHAT ALSO SPECIAL PERMITS AND SUCH THAT WOULD MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR US. SO I JUST I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU AND THANK YOU FOR MY OPPORTUNITY TO TO SHARE THAT. ANYBODY ELSE. OH COUNCIL, MY NAME IS MIKE MONTES. I LIVE IN HARVEST 117 LILYPAD BEND. I'M ALSO PRECINCT CHAIR, AND PART OF THE PRECINCT THAT I'M IN IS WHAT THE SCHOOL IS IS GOING TO BE IN. I FELT REALLY COMPELLED AS I WAS LISTENING TO SOME OF THE SPEAKERS THIS EVENING AND LOOKING FROM WHERE I WAS SITTING, SEEING THAT TEXAS THERE, JUST BELOW THE TOWN OF NORTHLAKE. I HAVE LIVED MY ENTIRE LIFE IN TEXAS, BORN IN IN EL PASO AND MOVED HERE AND LIVED IN DALLAS FORT WORTH AREA FOR A LONG TIME. WHAT BOTHERS ME IS AS A RESIDENT THERE IN HARVEST, I MADE A DECISION TO MOVE IN, FULLY AWARE OF THE HOA, FULLY AWARE OF THE RULES THAT I WAS AGREEING TO, AND AS I'M SEEING SOME OF MY FELLOW TEXANS BE TREATED UNFAIRLY BECAUSE WHEN THEY THEY HAVE LAND, THEY'VE LIVED THERE. AND THE TOWN, IT SEEMS, IS TRYING TO CONSTANTLY CHANGE THE RULES. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT'S THAT'S WHAT TEXAS IS ABOUT AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING. I APPRECIATE SOME OF THE COMMENTS, BUT THIS IS NOT TEXAS. THIS IS NOT HOW I WAS RAISED. WE DON'T TELL YOU.

DON'T TELL YOUR NEIGHBOR WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR LAND. THAT'S JUST UNACCEPTABLE. I FIGHT WITH THE HOA. IF THE HOA WANTS TO CHANGE THE RULES ON ME, AND I CAME IN TO MY HOUSE WITH CERTAIN AGREEMENT AND THAT WAS THE WAY IT WAS, AND DOING THAT TO TO THE HARDEMAN'S OR ANYONE ELSE WHO OWNS LAND THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY, I THINK IS WRONG. SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? WELCOME, SIR. HI. MY NAME IS KEVIN BRANNON AND I LIVE HERE IN NORTHLAKE. I APPRECIATE THE PHONE CALL YESTERDAY. THANK YOU. MY PROPERTY IS NOT BEING CHANGED SPECIFICALLY, BUT I AM SURROUNDED BY PROPERTIES THAT WILL BE CHANGED. AND SO I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO ONE OF NATHAN'S BULLET POINTS, WHICH IS I BELIEVE THIS CHANGE CREATES CONFUSION. IT DOES NOT REDUCE CONFUSION. WE'RE IN A

[01:25:05]

POINT NOW WHERE THIS IS WHAT WE MOVED INTO WHEN WE CAME HERE. WE UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS. I UNDERSTAND WHAT RURAL RESIDENTIAL MEANS. SO THAT'S A VERY KNOWN THING. IT'S A CERTAIN THING. BUT WE'RE MOVING INTO UNCERTAINTY. IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO CHANGE ALL THIS TO AG, I DON'T KNOW WHAT AG MEANS. IT COULD BE I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. AND IT'S IT'S NOT THE SAME. I THINK THE STATUS QUO IS VERY IMPORTANT HERE. AND I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT STAY. I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THE SUGGESTION THAT PERHAPS THE CORRECT THING TO DO IS TO SEND THIS BACK TO PNC, LOOK AT ALTERNATIVES. THAT KEEPS A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE STATUS QUO. A VERY EASY EXAMPLE WOULD BE TO LEAVE EVERYTHING AS IT IS AND SAY, WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE DEFAULT TO AG FOR ALL NEW ANNEXING, BUT THE EXISTING WILL STAY AS IT IS. I'M SURE THERE ARE OTHER ALTERNATIVES, BUT I JUST THIS IS A VERY BROAD BRUSH THAT WOULD BE PAINTED WITH, AND I JUST DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE BEST THING FOR NORTHLAKE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. ANYONE ELSE THIS EVENING? OKAY. SEEING NONE, IT IS 6:56 P.M. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCIL FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE REZONING, THE PROPERTY OWNERS, WE HAVE 9.3% OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA IN THAT IS FILED PROTEST. MISS YOUNG, THERE'S OUR LARGEST PROPERTY OWNER, 1.1 OR 1100 ACRES AND CHANGE HAS FILED TO SUPPORT THIS. SO I HAVE THREE LANDOWNERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE, BUT FAMILIES, THREE THAT FILED FOR, THREE THAT FILED AGAINST AND THEN THE BUFFER ZONE. I HAVE FIVE THAT FILED FOR, ONE THAT FILED AGAINST NEUTRAL AND TWO THAT FILED AGAINST. SO I HAVE 9.3% OF THE TOTAL ACREAGE THAT HAS FILED FOR A TEST. SOME OF THOSE WERE HERE TONIGHT. WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WELL, I WOULD HAVE FILED AGAINST, BUT I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS FAIR FOR ME TO FILE AGAINST AND VOTE ALSO. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE THE COMMENT THAT FOR ME, THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT LOOKING AT THE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LOOKING AT THE THE BROAD PICTURE OF THE TOWN. HOWEVER, THERE HAVE BEEN POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP TONIGHT THAT I BELIEVE ARE WORTH CONSIDERATION, AND WHAT'S BOTHERING ME IS COMING BACK IN A COUPLE MONTHS TO ADD THOSE AMENDMENTS. WE'RE CHANGING. WE'RE CHANGING THE RULES, AND I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WITH LOOKING AT THIS AND PASSING IT, KNOWING THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE NOT INCLUDED. I BOUGHT FIVE ACRES A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, AND I'M GOING TO LOSE ABOUT AN ACRE OF THAT FIVE ACRES THAT I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUILD ANYTHING ON. NOW I OWN ABOUT. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT I'M LIKE. JOHN MCCAIN. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT I OWN. BUT I THINK I OWN ABOUT 180 ACRES. I JUST BOUGHT SOME MORE. IT'S ONE REASON. THAT'S ONE REASON I DON'T KNOW IS I JUST BOUGHT SOME MORE. BUT ANYWAY, I DON'T WANT TO BUY FIVE ACRES AND THEN LOSE AN ACRE OF IT THAT I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUILD SOMETHING ON. THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT. AND AND WE'VE HEARD PEOPLE HERE, I HAVE NINE HERE THAT I BELIEVE IT WAS NINE THAT SAID THEY DIDN'T LIKE THIS. YES, SIR. AND MULTIPLE MULTIPLE PEOPLE. SAME ADDRESS. OKAY. WELL, WE CAN ARGUE WE HAVE WE HAVE OKAY. MASHBURN FAMILY, THE HAMMACK FAMILY AND THE YOUNG FAMILY FOR THE KIDWELL FAMILY, THE HARDEMAN FAMILY AND THE WEST FAMILY AGAINST. WOULD YOU RESPECT.

THAT'S MULTIPLE PROPERTIES. YES. AND AND YOUR LAND AREA IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THAT OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, AS I STATED, THIS IS ALREADY MY MISSION IN LIFE IS TO GET THE. SETBACKS CHANGED.

AND EVERYBODY UP HERE KNOWS ME. I'M A MAN OF MY WORD. AND I'VE ALREADY INSTRUCTED STAFF TO PUT THAT ON THE AGENDAS. I'M COUNTING ON ALL OF YOU TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN IF THIS PASSES TONIGHT, BECAUSE WE DO NEED THAT TO HAPPEN TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY OWNERS, LAND, LAND USAGES ALONG THEIR PROPERTY LINES. SO THAT IS ALREADY BEEN DIRECTED. I'VE DIRECTED HERE IN PUBLIC AND I WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO THAT. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO PASS THIS ITEM TONIGHT WITH T THIS WILL BE BROUGHT BACK ON THE QUICKEST AVAILABLE AGENDA.

[01:30:01]

I WOULD ENCOURAGE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION TO START IMMEDIATELY THAT WE'RE STARTING THIS PROCESS. MR. CORN. SURE. DO WE HAVE ANY SECONDS? I GUESS THAT I GUESS THAT MOTION FAILS.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION OR WHAT'S WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP? COUNCIL. CAN WE BRING IT BACK AND LOOK AT IT WITHOUT THE CHANGES? YOU DON'T LIKE TO SIT BACKS FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD HELP ME UNDERSTAND. WOULD YOU LIKE SOME OPTIONS ON REDUCE SETBACKS? GIVE US SOME OPTIONS ON THE SETBACKS, THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS STUFF. I'M ALL FOR HAVING AN AG AREA. I'M FOR RURAL. KEEPING THIS RURAL OR AG WHATEVER WORD WE WANT TO USE. BUT I'M NOT FOR THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WE PUT ON PEOPLE. SO THE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN, AS I BELIEVE THE CONSENSUS IS, WILL BE IN FEBRUARY TIME FRAME BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. THE THE TEXT AMENDMENT PROCESS IS SHORTER. SO THAT COULD HAPPEN IN JANUARY. BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THESE TOGETHER, IT'LL BE FEBRUARY. BUT. BUT WE COULD HAVE A BRIEFING IN JANUARY MAYBE TO GET SOME BETTER INPUT ON SETBACKS AND BUILDING HEIGHTS AND, AND ALL THOSE THINGS SO THAT I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY. I MEAN, THE PUBLIC HEARING, THOUGH, WE'RE GOING TO NEED LET ME RESTATE MY MOTION.

I'VE CREATED A SOLUTION. MAKE A MOTION TO PASS THIS WITH THE CONDITION THAT WE COMPLETE THE SETBACK, CHANGES TO COUNCIL SATISFACTION BY THE END OF MARCH. AND IF THAT IS NOT COMPLETED, THE ACTION IS UNDONE, JUST LIKE WE DO OFTEN IN DEVELOPER AGREEMENTS. CAN WE DO THAT? I THINK IN THE IN THE ZONING CONTEXT PROBABLY CAN DO THAT. OKAY. VERY GOOD. I TRIED I WANT TO COMMENT ON SOMETHING ELSE. AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH AN ARGYLE SCHOOL NOR ANY OTHER SCHOOL. IT'S SOMETHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT MAYBE FOR TEN YEARS, AT LEAST FOR TWO YEARS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT, AND THE IDEA THAT WE WANT TO PRESERVE THE I KEEP USING THE WORD RURAL BECAUSE AND THAT SHOULD CONFUSE US WITH RURAL RESIDENTIAL. BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT RURAL AS IN WIDE OPEN SPACES. I OWN ONE OF THOSE WIDE OPEN SPACES. I LOVE LIVING OUT HERE. I'VE BEEN OUT HERE FOR 40 PLUS YEARS, BUT THE IDEA THAT WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE TRYING TO HURT ARGYLE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS BULL. AND I THINK DEAN HAS MADE IT PLAIN TO US THAT WE PROBABLY CAN'T DO THAT ANYWAY. IS THAT NOT CORRECT, DEAN? YOU COULDN'T STOP A SCHOOL. YEAH. I MEAN, THEY HAVE CERTAIN POWER AND AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THEM BY THE CONSTITUTION. AND ONE THING IS CERTAIN IS THAT YOU CANNOT PREVENT A SCHOOL FROM BEING IN YOUR MUNICIPALITY BY USING ZONING. SO, SO WHERE WHAT ZONING CATEGORY THEY LAND IN IS, HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED BY THE COURTS? CAN WE MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS UNTIL WE HAVE HAVE TAKEN CARE OF THE SETBACKS? WELL THAT'S RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS PER DREW'S DIRECTION OF TIMING TO FEBRUARY, ALLOWING FOR A JANUARY MEETING FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC FEEDBACK FOR THESE SETBACKS, AND FOR THE PAIN POINTS THAT WE'RE HEARING ON THIS TO ENSURE THAT IT IS NOT. I'M SURE IT'S NOT HURTING THE LANDOWNERS IN THIS IN THIS CASE, AS WE ALIGN IT WITH COUNCIL MEMBER. LET ME CHECK WITH ATTORNEY HERE. SO AND NATHAN, SO IF WE COME BACK WITH. WE'RE REZONING BUT WE'RE ALSO MOVING IT TO A ZONE THAT'S CHANGING.

THERE WERE REVISING THE ZONING DISTRICT. SO I DON'T CAN WE DO THOSE SIMULTANEOUSLY. AND IF WE NOTICE IT SUCH IF WE SAY THAT THE SETBACK WAS 30 BUT WE WANTED IT TO BE 20, HAVE WE CHANGED THAT. AND WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN. SO THIS STEP IS TO MOVE THOSE PROPERTIES

[01:35:03]

FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO AG, THEY'RE LANDING IN A DISTRICT THAT ALREADY HAS RULES, REGULATIONS JUST LIKE RURAL RESIDENTIAL HAS. THEY'RE THEY'RE CHANGING TO THAT NEW SET. HOW DO WE CHANGE THAT SET. CAN WE CHANGE THAT? AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK I THINK THE ORDER OF SEQUENCE WOULD BE IMPORTANT, AND I THINK THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO MAKE THE CHANGE TO THE AG ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE SETBACK FIRST, AND THEN DO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CHANGE. BUT WE'D HAVE TO WE'D HAVE TO COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE THE CHANGES TO THE AG DISTRICT. YES. THEN WE'D HAVE TO START THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS. OR CAN WE HAVE THEM? AS COUNCIL IS TRYING TO GET TO HAVE THEM HAPPEN, HAVE THEM LAND AT THE SAME TIME. I THINK YOU CAN HAVE THEM LAND AT THE SAME TIME. OKAY. YEAH. ALRIGHT. I'M FOR THIS AND FOR THE. SO FOR THE FIRST TIME I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WHAT YOU KNOW, HOW WE CAN GET THERE TO MEET THE COUNCIL'S NEEDS. BUT WE WOULD DO BOTH A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. WE MAY HAVE TO DO A BRIEFING IN JANUARY 8TH AND ACTION IN JANUARY 22ND TO MAKE SURE WE GET PLENTY OF INPUT. AND THEN IN FEBRUARY, WE WOULD HAVE THE REZONING OF PROPERTIES INTO AG. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE. YES, I THINK I MEAN, BECAUSE THAT THAT ONE THAT TIMING GIVES ENOUGH FOR ONE THE BRIEFING FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING FOR THE INFORMATION, ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK FOR THOSE POTENTIAL CHANGES ALLOWING US, TO US AND THE COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND AND AND GIVE FEEDBACK ON HOW THIS WORKS THE RIGHT WAY. AND THEN GOING INTO A FEBRUARY MEETING, ALLOWING FOR ALL OF THAT TO COME TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME. AND SO, YES, THAT WOULD BE MY MY MOTION. WHAT YOU SAID YOU WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THE DENY THIS OR NO ACTION. MY RECOMMENDATION IS YOU CONTINUE THIS ITEM AND READ NOTICE IT WITH THE NEW INFORMATION. NOTICE IT RIGHT AND GO BACK TO PNC. YOU. WHEN IS PNC THEN? KANSAS AND MISSOURI. OKAY, SO YEAH IT WOULD BE RE NOTICE BACK TO PNC. ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING FOR THE TEXT AMENDMENT. WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SCHEDULE. BUT ARE THEY THE THIRD WEEK. BUT THE TUESDAY BEFORE THE FOURTH WEDNESDAY FOR COUNCIL IN JANUARY. SO MAYBE PNC JANUARY 20TH AND COUNCIL 20 THE 22ND?

[5.C. VOTE]

YEAH, WE'LL HAVE TO WE'LL MAKE SURE IT LINES UP. SO SO MOTION TO TABLE. THIS STAFF'S DISCRETION ON SCHEDULE TO MAKE THOSE THINGS HAPPEN AS NEEDED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. YES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. AND TO COVER POINTS THAT MR. PIZZUTO BROUGHT UP. OKAY. SO I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. I GUESS WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT THOUGH, TO TABLE IT. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND HAVE A VOTE TO TABLE AND PUSH. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM IS PUSHED

[5.D. Consider approval of a Resolution of the Town of Northlake, Texas, amending Resolution 25-69 and updating the Town Meetings and Holiday Calendar for the 2026 Calendar Year]

FORWARD. NEXT WE HAVE A CONCERN APPROVAL RESOLUTION ON NORTH LAKE FOR ADJUSTING THE MEETINGS AND HOLIDAY CALENDAR FOR 2026. THOSE ARE IN YOUR PACKETS. I DON'T THINK WE NEED A PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM. I HAVE A QUICK ONE. DO WE? YEAH. YEAH, IT SHOULDN'T BE COMPLICATED, BUT IT IS, AS WITH MOST THINGS. BUT WE HAVE A CALENDAR THAT WE'VE. THAT COUNCIL HAS BEEN ABOUT 3 OR 4 YEARS. WE TRY TO DO A LOT OF THINGS IN. THIS IS DEAD. OKAY.

THANK YOU. WE TRY TO DO A LOT OF THINGS IN THIS CHAMBER. THE MAIN THING, THE MAIN REASON IS THE COUNCIL MEETINGS AND WE DO THAT. WE ALSO HOLD COURT IN HERE. WE HAVE ALL OUR BOARD MEETINGS IN HERE. AND WE DO TRY TO HELP THE COMMUNITY AND HAVE ELECTIONS. THE CURRENT. THE CURRENT DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL IS TO HOLD GENERAL ELECTIONS. THE MAY LOCAL ELECTION IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTION, THE INCLUDED IN THOSE ARE EARLY VOTING. THERE CAN BE RUNOFFS FOR LOCAL ELECTIONS, THE THE GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER BECAUSE OF THE PARTY SYSTEM DOES NOT HAVE A RUNOFF. THE THE WINNER IS DECIDED THEN. SO WE HAD A REQUEST TO HOLD A PRIMARY

[01:40:08]

ELECTION IN IN THESE FACILITIES. AND IT'S IT'S NOT JUST ONE DAY THEY LOAD THEM THE EQUIPMENT, THEY HOLD THE ELECTION AND THEN THEY HAUL OFF THE EQUIPMENT. WE REALLY CAN'T USE THIS FACILITY WHILE THE EQUIPMENT IS IN HERE. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE IMPACTS OF THAT. AND SO DEFINITELY GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE MUNICIPAL COURT POSSIBILITY IT MIGHT MOVE A TOWN COUNCIL MEETING THEN. SO WHEN WE TALKED TO THE COUNTY THEY SAID OH GREAT, YOU'RE HAVING A PRIMARY ELECTION.

LET'S GET WITH YOU. ON THE EARLY VOTING DAYS, WE'RE LIKE, WAIT A MINUTE. WE WERE JUST TOLD IT WAS AN ELECTION DAY, BUT IT THE THE COUNTY IS EXPECTING IT BECAUSE IF THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ELECTION DAY, THEY NEED IT ALSO FOR EARLY VOTING. AND SO THAT'S SOME ADDITIONAL COUNCIL MEETINGS THAT MIGHT HAVE TO BE. RESCHEDULED. AND THEN A LOT OF TIMES IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS, ESPECIALLY FOR OPEN SEATS, THERE'S GOING TO BE A RUNOFF.

SO THERE'S AN EXPECTATION THERE'S GOING TO BE A RUNOFF. AND THE SAME THING HOLDS AGAIN.

THE ASK WAS JUST ELECTION DAY. THE POTENTIAL IS EARLY VOTING AND POSSIBLY A RUNOFF WHICH HAS EARLY VOTING AND ELECTION DAY. SO WHAT STAFF IS WORRIED ABOUT IS THIS ASK COULD INCREASE. AND THEN VERY. IT'LL SET A PRECEDENT. AND SO THE IT'LL BE ASKED AGAIN AND AGAIN. SO AND ONE FINAL THING IS WE CAN ONLY WE ONLY HAVE THE SIZE TO HOST ONE POLITICAL PARTY. SO THE COUNCIL WILL NEED TO TELL US WHICH POLITICAL PARTY TO DO THIS. SO ANYWAY, WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE, WE'RE TRYING TO DO I JUST WANT YOU GUYS TO KNOW THE POTENTIAL IMPACT AND KIND OF THE WATERFALL EFFECT. IF THIS IF THIS RESOLUTION IS APPROVED TO CHANGE THE CALENDAR, WE HAVE NO WE HAVE NO OTHER PLACE TO DO THIS. RIGHT HERE OR ELSE. NO, I KNOW THAT. I KNOW THAT THE THANKS AS OF NOW, IT'S HERE, OR ELSE I KNOW THAT THE ESDS HAD ELECTIONS IN IN HARVEST AND SOME OF THEIR FACILITIES. I KNOW SCHOOL DISTRICTS DO THAT, BUT NO, THAT'S NOT OKAY. AS FAR AS THE MOON GOES, THIS ROOM, IT'LL HAVE TO BE THIS ROOM. IF IT'S A NORTHLAKE FACILITY. CORRECT. IT'LL BE THIS THIS SPACE. WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER SPACE THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE. DENTON COUNTY HAS A LITTLE. IT'S A LOT. THEY THEY HAVE A LARGER SPACE REQUEST THAN OTHER COUNTIES. AND SO YEAH, THIS IS THE ONLY ROOM THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE IT.

SO THERE'S A SPACE AND YEAH SORRY. SPACE REQUIREMENTS. SO LIKE THE ROOM BY THE POLICE STATION THAT ISN'T WOULDN'T BE BIG ENOUGH. WE'VE OFFERED THAT ISN'T BIG ENOUGH. NO. NO SIR.

CONFERENCE CENTER. CONFERENCE CENTER WOULD COULD BE A POSSIBILITY I, I DON'T KNOW, I'M PROBABLY JUST THREW A WRENCH AT YOU. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. IT WASN'T ASKED. SO IF IT'S ASKED, THAT TAKES THAT FACILITY OFF OF REVENUE GENERATION. THEY'RE REALLY TRYING HARD TO GET STARTED. THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE I DON'T KNOW. WE WANT TO SUBSIDIZE THAT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC. I DO KNOW THEY WANTED TO BE NEAR THE COMMUNITIES. THERE'S. BUT THERE'S VERY LARGE APARTMENT COMMUNITIES DOWN THERE TOO. SO I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. WHAT WHAT I'M ASKING YOU IS, DO YOU WANT DO YOU WANT TO UPDATE THE CALENDAR IS WHAT I'M ASKING. I KNOW THAT I BROUGHT THIS TO YOU ORIGINALLY THROUGH, OF COURSE, A PARTY PERSON WHO ASKED ABOUT THIS. AND THIS IS EXTREMELY DISRUPTIVE. I WOULD LOVE TO HOST, BUT I JUST DON'T THINK THE CALENDAR CAN WORK WITH THAT. AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE'VE WE'VE KIND OF SET EXPECTATIONS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS OF WHAT WE CAN SUPPORT AND WHAT WE CAN'T WHAT. SO SORRY TO JUST KEEP THROWING RANDOM WRENCHES AND ADD QUESTIONS FOR YOU, BUT THIS NEW STAR LIKE STAR CENTER, LIKE, IS THERE A SPACE THERE? LIKE, I MEAN, ONE THAT IS A CONFERENCE ROOM, BUT THEN WOULD ALSO BE DUAL PURPOSE AND DRIVING TRAFFIC TO SOMETHING NEW THAT WE WANT TO HIGHLIGHT. THAT'S A POSSIBILITY AS WELL. I BUT THAT'S NOT TILL APRIL THAT WE CAN GET ANYBODY IN THERE. YEAH, BUT AS FAR AS FUTURE SPACE, THERE'S A THERE'S A POSSIBILITY. WELL REMEMBER WE'RE LEASING HERE AND WE'RE ALREADY RUNNING OUT OF ROOM. WE ARE GOING TO TALK OVER THE NEXT BUDGET YEAR ABOUT NEW FACILITY THAT WILL DEFINITELY BUILD TO ACCOMMODATE THIS. WE'LL HAVE SOME ROOMS THAT HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY AND AREN'T PURPOSELY BUILT FOR THIS BOARD.

BOARD MEETING PURPOSES. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? COUNCIL I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE DON'T MODIFY

[01:45:08]

THE CALENDAR FOR THIS. IT'S VERY HEAVY. REALLY HEAVY SCHEDULE. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO OUR CALENDAR IS PUBLISHED IN THE PACKET IS WITHOUT THIS ASPECT. YEAH. THERE'S THERE'S TWO VERSIONS. YES SIR. SO ONE. SO GO WITH THE CURRENT. YES SIR. CURRENT. DO I HAVE ANY MOTIONS ON THIS COUNCIL.

[5.D. VOTE]

I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE STICK WITH THE CURRENT CALENDAR I SECOND THAT.

MOTION FROM DOCTOR SESSIONS AND A SECOND FROM MR. FOWLER. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

[5.E. Consider adoption of an Ordinance of the Town of Northlake, Texas, amending the Code of Ordinances and Appendix "A" "Fee Schedule", providing water and sanitary sewer service fee updates to be effective the first billing cycle in January 2026]

ITEM E FEE SCHEDULE FOR WATER, SANITARY SEWER. OH, YOU ARE HERE TONIGHT I AM HERE I AM ALMOST HIDING IN THE BACK SOMEWHERE. YOU MISSED IT. THEY ADDED ANOTHER FUND FOR YOU.

THEY ADDED ANOTHER FUND. OH, THAT'S FUN, THAT'S VERY FUN. SO OKAY, BAD JOKES ASIDE. OKAY, SO I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THIS REALLY QUICKLY. OUR CONSULTANTS, NEW GEN CAME IN LAST TIME AND THEY DISCUSSED THEIR STUDY. THEY DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED RATES. BUT JUST STARTING OFF WITH THIS SLIDE REALLY QUICKLY. AS ALWAYS FOR COUNCIL GUIDANCE, WE DO A STUDY EVERY YEAR. WE HIRE NEW GEN STRATEGIES WHO WE'RE CURRENTLY PARTNERING WITH TO DO A STUDY IN ORDER FOR US TO KEEP ON PACE WITH MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE FUNDING OUR OPERATIONS AND FUNDING THE COSTS OF WATER AND SEWER, AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE KEEPING UP WITH OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. AND THE WHOLE GOAL OF DOING THAT STUDY EACH YEAR AND ADJUSTING OUR RATES EACH YEAR IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT FALLING BEHIND, AND THEN HAVING TO DO A LARGE JUMP LIKE SOME MUNICIPALITIES HAD, HAVE HAD TO DO IN THE AREA OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. SO WHAT'S DRIVING THE RATES MAINLY IS OUR WHOLESALE WATER AND SEWER COSTS. THOSE HAVE JUMPED AND THEY MAKE ABOUT 64% OF THOSE OF THOSE COSTS. AND THEN WE HAVE ALSO OUR OPERATIONS AS WELL AS OUR CIP PROJECTS, OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. NOW WHOLESALE COSTS, THOSE ARE PROJECTED TO GO UP ABOUT 5.3%, WITH FORT WORTH WATER FOR SEWER AND 6% FOR UPPER TRINITY FOR OR SORRY, FOR WATER. AND THEN WITH OUR SEWER WHOLESALE COSTS, WE'RE EXPECTED TO GO UP ABOUT 7.7%. AND THOSE ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE US WITH THOSE WATER IS OR SEWER IS TRINITY RIVER AUTHORITY AND OUR PECAN SQUARE MMD. OVERALL WHOLESALE COSTS PROJECTED INCREASED ABOUT 11%. NOW THE RATE INCREASE THAT NUGEN HAS HELPED US TO FASHION TO HELP US MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MEETING OPERATIONAL COSTS, MEETING OUR DEBT OBLIGATIONS, AND THEN BEING ABLE TO PAY FOR WATER AND SEWER SERVICES FROM OUR WHOLESALE PROVIDERS IS 5.5%. AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THIS IS THE JANUARY BILLING CYCLE. SO WE'RE STARTING OUR METER READ PROCESS THIS WEEK. WITH THE HOLIDAYS COMING UP, WE TEND TO DO THAT A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, AND THEN WE'LL FINISH THAT OFF NEXT WEEK. AND THEN CUSTOMERS WILL BE RECEIVING AN INSERT IN DECEMBER DETAILING ANY CHANGES THAT COUNCIL APPROVES AND WHAT THOSE NEW RATES ARE, AND NOTIFYING THEM THAT THAT WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE JANUARY 26TH BILL. THIS IS JUST A SLIDE WITH THE CURRENT RATES THERE ON THE LEFT, NEXT TO THE PROPOSED RATES ON THE RIGHT FOR BOTH WATER AND SEWER RATES. AND REALLY JUST LOOKING AT THE THOSE TOP THREE METERS, SMALLEST METERS. SO THE THREE QUARTER INCH, THE ONE INCH AND THE 1.5IN, WHICH TENDS TO BE MOST OF OUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

AND WITH THAT, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AND IF NOT, I'LL LET COUNCIL MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ITEM, DECIDE HOW THEY'D LIKE TO HANDLE IT. ANY QUESTIONS? LET ME ASK. WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY PROFIT TO BEGIN WITH, AND BY RAISING THESE RATES, WE'RE STILL NOT MAKE ANY PROFIT. BUT WE'RE STAYING EVEN. YEAH. SO THE INTENT BEHIND THE RATES IS TO NOT MAKE ANY PROFITS TO SUPPORT OUR OPERATIONAL COSTS, AND THEN TO ALSO PROVIDE HELP WITH THAT

[5.E. VOTE]

RESERVE FUND AS WELL IN CASE OF A BAD DAY. VERY GOOD COUNSEL. TAKE MOTIONS MOTION, MOTION APPROVED FOR MR. GANS. SECOND SECOND FROM DOCTOR SESSIONS. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

[5.F. Consider adoption of an Ordinance of the Town of Northlake, Texas, amending Ordinance No. 17- 0413G, the Town of Northlake Fee Schedule; Appendix "A" to the Code of Ordinances, Town of Northlake, Texas, amending Article A4.000 Water and Sanitary Sewer Service Fees]

NEXT ITEM. NORTHLAKE FEE SCHEDULE TO UPDATE THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. PRETTY MUCH THE SAME ITEM. AGAIN. IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. THIS ONE HAS TO DO WITH OUR. I'LL JUST KEEP IT

[01:50:06]

REALLY BRIEF. THIS HAS TO DO WITH OUR FIRE HYDRANT METERS. SO THEY COST US ABOUT $3,000 TO BUY THESE FIRE HYDRANT METERS THAT WE THEN GIVE TO BUILDERS WHO USE THAT TO TAP INTO OUR WATER AND OUR WATER SYSTEM WHEN THEY'RE DOING THEIR BUILDS. WE HAVE A LIMITED SUPPLY OF THOSE.

WE CAN ALWAYS GO OUT AND BUY MORE IF THERE'S MORE AVAILABLE ON THE MARKET. BUT LIKE I SAID, THEY DO COST 3000 PER METER. AND SO WE LIKE THOSE BUILDERS TO TURN THOSE BACK IN ONCE THEY'RE DONE USING THEM. AND WE HAVE A PROCESS WHERE WE ASK BUILDERS TO SIGN A SIX MONTH AGREEMENT AND TO RENEW THAT AGREEMENT EVERY SIX MONTHS SO THAT WE CAN KEEP THEM ACCOUNTABLE. WE'RE FINDING THAT THOSE AGREEMENTS HAVEN'T BEEN SIGNED, OR THAT SOMETIMES METERS END UP DISAPPEARING, BECAUSE A BUILDER JUST KIND OF EITHER LOSES IT OR RUNS OFF WITH IT. AND SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS JUST A RECURRING MONTHLY FINE FOR THOSE WHO DON'T UPDATE THEIR OR DON'T RENEW THEIR AGREEMENT OF $350 PER MONTH. AND THE HOPE IS, IS THAT THIS WILL ENCOURAGE BUILDERS WHO HAVE FIRE METERS TO BE PROACTIVE. WE'LL TRY AND REACH OUT TO THEM ALWAYS TO GET THEIR RENEWAL AGREEMENTS UPDATED, BUT ALSO TO TURN IN THOSE FIRE HYDRANT METERS SO WE'RE NOT HAVING TO REPLACE THEM AND SPEND TOWN FUNDS ON SOMETHING THAT WE DIDN'T NEED TO IN THE FIRST PLACE. WHY DON'T WE JUST. I'M SORRY. WHY DON'T WE JUST MAKE THEM PAY FOR IT? WE DO. SO WE HOLD WE HAVE A SECURITY DEPOSIT THAT WE COLLECT. SO IF THEY DO LOSE IT, WE KEEP THAT SECURITY DEPOSIT. PART OF THE ISSUE THAT WE RUN INTO IS WE WILL HAVE BUILDERS WHO ARE ASKING FOR FIVE METERS, AND THEN WE'RE SUDDENLY DOWN IN STOCK. SO. WHAT? YEAH. WHAT'S THE THE SECURITY DEPOSIT THAT WE HOLD IS 3000. SO IT DOES COVER THE COST OF THE METER IF IT'S LOST AND NOT RETURNED. SO IT'S JUST INVENTORY CONTROL IS WHAT IT IS. SO WE COULD OVERBUY AND HAVE PLENTY. BUT THEN OR YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST TRYING TO TRYING TO KEEP THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF NUMBERS FOR THE NEED. I FEEL BETTER NOW. THANK YOU. I'LL

[5.F. VOTE]

MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. I'LL SECOND. MOTION FROM DOCTOR SESSIONS. A SECOND FROM MAYOR PRO TEM LAWRENCE. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THE NEXT ITEM WE HAVE PRESENTATION ON

[5.G. Consider approval of a Resolution of the Town of Northlake, Texas, approving and authorizing the Town Manager to execute an agreement with MASA for emergency and non-emergency medical transportation benefits; authorizing the enrollment of each household to receive such benefits at a cost of $6.75 per household paid by the resident; providing an option for residents to opt out of the program; and providing an effective date]

CAREFLITE. SOME TIME AGO. COUNCIL WAS NOT TO ENTHRALLED WITH THAT. SO DREW WENT OUT AND.

JUST LOOKED EVERYWHERE TO SEE WHAT ELSE WAS OUT THERE. AND HE FOUND SOMETHING THAT'S RATHER INTERESTING. WE DO HAVE PROBABLY SOME RESIDENTS THAT DON'T HAVE ANY TYPE OF HEALTH INSURANCE, AND THAT FLIGHT WOULD VERY MUCH DAMAGE THEM. SO DREW FOUND SOMETHING THAT MAY BE AN OPTION TO YOU, OUR HEALTH CARE CONSULTANT, WHO IS IN THIS SPACE, FOUND THIS. BUT AS THE MAYOR SAID, CAREFLITE IS A MEMBERSHIP. IT'S NOT A COVERAGE. AND IT WAS INITIATED IN 2014.

IT'S A DOLLAR A MONTH ON YOUR UTILITY BILL. PEOPLE HARDLY NOTICE THAT PAYMENT. THEY CAME TO US IN A BRIEFING EARLIER THIS YEAR, YOU KNOW, JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO. THEY NEED TO INCREASE TO $2 PER HOUSEHOLD. BUT WE FOUND THAT THERE ARE SOME PRETTY SIGNIFICANT GAPS.

AGAIN, IT'S NOT A COVERAGE. IT'S A MEMBERSHIP. SO IT DEPENDS ON WHO PICKS YOU UP IN YOUR EMERGENCY. AND ONE OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS WAS PICKED UP BY THE WRONG BY THE WRONG HELICOPTER. SO SO OUR HEALTH CARE CONSULTANT SEARCH AND I APOLOGIZE. THIS IS LATE. AND THIS IS A DECISION THAT'S NEEDS TO BE MADE. AND WE'RE JUST GETTING THIS INFORMATION. BUT WE RUSHED IT TO YOU. IT'S MASA MEDICAL ACCESS AND SERVICE ADVANTAGE. AGAIN IT'S A COVERAGE. IT'S A BENEFIT. IT COVERS ANY TRANSPORT IN THE UNITED STATES AND MOST OF CANADA. SO IT'S A PRETTY ROBUST SERVICE. IT IS INCREASE. IT'S A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE FROM $2 A MONTH TO 6.75 A MONTH. BUT IN YOUR PACKET YOU SEE AND HERE'S AN OVERVIEW OF THE COVERAGE OF THAT. THIS IS A IN ADDITION TO TO YOUR HEALTH CARE COVERAGE. BUT AS THE MAYOR SAID, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY COVERAGE YOU GET YOU GET THIS BENEFIT IT IT WORKS IN TANDEM WITH YOUR EXISTING HEALTHCARE COVERAGE TO GET THIS PRICE. IT'S WHAT'S CALLED AN OPT OUT. SO EVERYBODY'S COVERED UNLESS YOU UNLESS YOU PURPOSEFULLY OPT OUT, THEY WILL HELP US WITH INFORMATION. WE'LL PUT IT IN OUR WATER BILLS, WE'LL DO A MAIL OUT, AND WE'LL BE VERY DELIBERATE AND VERY. WELL. WE'LL MAKE SURE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE OPT OUT AND MAKE THAT AN EASY PROCESS FOR THEM IF THEY CHOOSE THAT. SO AGAIN, THIS IS A QUICK TURNAROUND. WE CAN CONTINUE WITH CAREFLITE. WE CAN RENEW THEM. THEIR THEIR MEMBERSHIP ENDS DECEMBER 30TH AND THAT'S A $1 TO A $2 A MONTH INCREASE. WE CAN NOT HAVE A COVERAGE. SO THAT'S AN OPTION

[01:55:08]