[00:00:01]
THAT. YES, MA'AM. MALCOLM HARDY SOULS. ON YOUR MISSION. WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. AND
[1. CALL TO ORDER]
THE WEATHER. I'M GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 530. FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS OUR[2.A. Briefing - Approved Plats Report ]
BRIEFING. I ASSUME YOU'RE GOING TO HANDLE THAT FOR NATHAN TODAY. I AM, HE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF FURTHER TRIP THAN I DID. SO AS WE DO, WE. PNC NO LONGER APPROVES THE PLAQUES, BUT WE BRING THEM BACK TO YOU, SHOW YOU WHAT HAD HAPPENED. THIS IS NORTHLAKE BIBLE CHURCH. IT'S AT THE T OF FORT AND 407. HERE'S THE ACREAGE. IT'S PART OF AN MPD AND ONE LOT FOR THE CHURCH.SO YOU CAN SEE THE LITTLE BEND IN 407 THERE. THERE'S A CHURCH. THE PLAT INCLUDES THE FIRE LANE, THE WATER LINE EASEMENT, THE SEWER EASEMENT THAT THEN CONNECTS ON UP TO 407. SO ANY QUESTIONS? IS THIS ONE? IS THIS THE ONE THAT'S PART OF PECAN SQUARE THAT IT TAKES. YES. IT'S IT'S A SEPARATE PROPERTY NOW BUT IT WAS IT'S ADJACENT PART ADJACENT PART OF THAT. YEAH.
YEAH YEAH. IT'S IT'S AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PECAN SQUARE. WHAT DID I SAY? SORRY.
YOU SAID PECAN. OH. I GOT YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. DREW. OKAY. IT IS NOW 531. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC INPUT. IF THERE'S ANYONE PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ITEM. YES, YES WE DO SO. ALL RIGHT. NO ONE WANTING TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME.
THEN WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC INPUT AT 532. NEXT, ON OUR AGENDA ACTION ITEMS, WE WANT TO
[4.A.Consider approval of December 9, 2025 Meeting Minutes ]
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FROM OUR DECEMBER 9TH MEETING. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING. MINUTES IS THERE. DO I HEAR A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. OKAY. ALL[4.A. VOTE]
RIGHT, LET'S VOTE.MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. MINUTES ARE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. NEXT
[4.B. Consider a recommendation on proposed text amendments to Article 5, Zoning Districts, of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to update standards related to the Agricultural (AG) zoning district - Case # 25-UDC00004]
ITEM OF BUSINESS IS TO CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE FIVE ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO UPDATE STANDARDS RELATED TO THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT. CASE NUMBER 25, UDC FOUR. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. JUST GOT A FEW SLIDES, KIND OF GET US CAUGHT BACK UP, AND THEN YOU CAN HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING AFTER THAT, IF YOU SO CHOOSE. OKAY. SO AG AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WAS CREATED IN OCTOBER 13TH, 2022. IT IS INTENDED, IF THE PRIMARY USE OF THE PROPERTY IS A RANCH OR A FARM. AT THAT TIME, NO OTHER PROPERTIES WERE REZONED AG IN MOST RECENTLY IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR, COUNCIL TABLED A CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING THE ZONING FROM OF RURAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES OVER 20 ACRES TO AG. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS AND AND BASED ON THE COMMENTS MADE, COUNCIL TABLED THAT AND DIRECTED STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A TEXT AMENDMENT. SO TONIGHT YOU'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE TEXT AMENDMENT, NOT YOU'VE ALREADY RECOMMENDED THE REZONING TO COUNCIL. THIS IS TO GET THAT TEXT AMENDMENT. I'LL GO OVER IN JUST A SECOND TO CATCH UP WITH THE REZONING ON COUNCIL. SO WE BRIEFED COUNCIL JANUARY 8TH. AND THE OUTCOME OF THAT IS COUNCIL PROVIDED DIRECTION, NOT A DEMAND. YOU'RE YOUR OWN BOARD. YOU MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THEM. BUT IF THEY ALREADY TOLD YOU WHAT THEY KIND OF WANT TO SEE, IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO SEND THEM. OTHERWISE IT MAY COME BACK. SO THE DIRECTION WAS TO REDUCE ALL THE AG SETBACKS TO RURAL THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS. AND THAT WAS A COMPROMISE REACHED. AND[00:05:01]
THAT WAS THE MAJORITY OF COMMENTS WE RECEIVED. AND THEN ALSO NOT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, BUT THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT THE SPECIAL PERMIT FEE. SO THAT WAS REDUCED. BUT THAT'LL BE A COUNCIL ACTION LATER. AND SO THIS IS TONIGHT BEFORE YOU IS TO CONSIDER THOSE SETBACKS. AND I CAN GO THROUGH THOSE VERY BRIEFLY AND THEN MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. SO AGAIN AG IS FOR THE PRIMARY USE IS RANCH OR FARM. AND THEN RURAL RESIDENTIAL IS MORE OF AN ESTATE, LOT MORE OF A RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE. ALTHOUGH AG CAN BE USED IN ALMOST ANY DISTRICT. SO THIS AG IS FOR TO MATCH OUR LAND USE PLAN AND TO PRESERVE THESE LARGER PROPERTIES. HERE IS THE THE TABLE THERE. AND YOU CAN SEE IN RED THAT IT MATCHES UP EXACTLY WITH RURAL RESIDENTIAL. SO I'LL PAUSE HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. AND THEN IF YOU SO CHOOSE, YOU CAN HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO WITH THIS CHANGE WE WILL HAVE TWO DIFFERENT ZONES RIGHT. WE'LL HAVE AG AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL. YES. WE'LL HAVE I THINK WE'LL HAVE SIX NOW. SIX.SO SO WE HAVE CURRENTLY WE HAVE RURAL RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE. WE HAVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS WHICH ARE USUALLY NEIGHBORHOODS MIXED USE. WE HAVE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL. SO THIS WILL ADD ONE MORE ZONING DISTRICT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS. LET ME REPEAT THAT. WE ALREADY HAVE IT. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE CHANGING. YOU'RE CHANGING YOU. YOU'RE CONSIDERING RECOMMENDING CHANGING THE SETBACKS. SETBACKS. ON FEBRUARY 12TH, COUNCIL WITH IF THE SETBACKS ARE INCLUDED, WE'LL CONSIDER REZONING EXISTING PROPERTIES OVER 20 ACRES FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO AG. SO YOU ALL HAVE ALREADY TAKEN THAT STEP. BUT WE'RE CATCHING THE THE COMPROMISE OF THE SETBACKS UP TO THAT FEBRUARY 12TH MEETING. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE THE THE AG DISTRICT ALREADY EXISTED. IT ALREADY EXISTS. WHAT YOU'RE DOING NOW IS YOU'RE CHANGING AN EXISTING DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT, YOU'RE CHANGING THE SETBACKS IN THESE CATEGORIES. THAT'S WHAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING TONIGHT. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WEREN'T COMMISSIONERS, WHO WEREN'T HERE LAST TIME, ONE OF THE MAJOR OBJECTIONS OF SOME OF THE FOLKS WHO HAD AGRICULTURAL ZONING WAS THEY FELT THAT THE LARGER SETBACKS WERE UNFAIR BECAUSE THEY PROHIBITED THEIR BUILDING ON MORE OF THE LAND THAT THEY OWNED. SO THAT'S THAT WAS A CONCERN THAT COUNCIL TOOK TO HEART. AND THAT'S WHY THEY CAME FORWARD WITH THIS, THIS REQUEST THAT WE CONSIDER THIS. OKAY, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. SO IN SHORT, THE PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD ALLOW A PROPERTY OWNER THAT ZONED AGRICULTURE TO UTILIZE MORE OF THEIR LAND. RIGHT. WITH THE REDUCED SETBACK OR ALIGNING THE SETBACK WITH RURAL RESIDENTIAL. RIGHT. THEY CAN. RIGHT. THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT BEING PENALIZED. I SEE BECAUSE OF AGRICULTURE I SEE OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE DID GET SOME REQUESTS FOR INPUT HERE. SO AT 539 I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A SPEAKER COME FORWARD. I ALSO WE ALSO RECEIVED ONE WRITTEN OBJECTION TO THE CHANGE FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO AG. BUT WE ARE NOT ACTING ON THAT SPECIFICALLY TONIGHT. BUT MR. BOY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD? SURE. DID I SAY THAT CORRECTLY? SAVOIR SORRY. FRENCH. THAT'S OKAY.
IT'S A GOOD WEST TEXAS THING. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MICHAEL. I LIVE AT 8132 FLORENCE ROAD IN NORTH LAKE, AND I AM ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT IS AFFECTED BY THIS.
I. AND SO I'M GOING TO MAKE TWO STATEMENTS HERE FOR YOU. ONE IS I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE CHANGES.
JUST YOUR QUESTION. EARLIER IN THE ORIGINAL WAY THE CHANGE WAS PUT IN PLACE, IT WOULD HAVE IT WOULD HAVE DENIED US THE ABILITY TO BUILD ON ROUGHLY 25 ACRES OF LAND. WITH THE NEW
[00:10:03]
SETBACKS, IT'S LESS OBVIOUSLY. AND IT GOES BACK TO WHAT WE HAD BEFORE, WHICH IS RURAL RESIDENTIAL. SO THAT WAS THAT WAS A BIG PART OF IT. FOR MOST OF THE LARGER LANDOWNERS. WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO DEVELOP. WE WE ARE GOOD STEWARDS OF OUR LAND. WE RUN CATTLE AND STUFF. AND SO WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY. AND ONE OF THE ISSUES WE'VE HAD WITH THE ZONING CHANGE IS THAT IT'S A AS NATHAN SAID, IT'S A HOLDING ZONING FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS FINE FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY. AND IT'S IT'S ZONING FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO AS THEY BRING NEW PROPERTY INTO THE TOWN. IT WOULD BE THE DEFAULT ZONING, WHICH ONCE AGAIN, DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT EITHER. THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH IT AND YOU'RE NOT ADDRESSING IT TONIGHT. WE TALKED ABOUT IT LAST TIME, BUT I DO WANT TO STATE IT. FOR THE RECORD, THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE WITH IT IS THAT IT IS A FORCED ZONING. YOU ARE FORCIBLY CHANGING OUR ZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO AG, WHICH LIMITS WHAT WE CAN DO WITH OUR PROPERTY. AND THAT, TO ME IS JUST THE ANTITHESIS OF WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO AS A TOWN OF NORTHLAKE, WHICH IS TO PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, PROTECT YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. AND AND AS I'VE STATED PREVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT'S A BIG DEAL TO PROPERTY OWNERS LIKE MYSELF. BUT ASK YOURSELF IF IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THE CITY COULD COME IN AND REZONE A PARK INTO AN INDUSTRIAL SITE, OR BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE ALLOWING WITH ZONING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, BY ALLOWING THE CITY TO FORCIBLY REZONE PROPERTY, YOU'RE PUTTING THE CITIZENS IN A POSITION WHERE WE HAVE NO SAY IN WHAT THE CITY GOVERNMENT DOES IN TERMS OF THE USE OF OUR PROPERTIES. AND SO THAT'S ON PRINCIPLE. I'M OPPOSED TO THE ZONING ITSELF. AND ONCE AGAIN, I REALIZE WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING THAT TONIGHT.BUT FOR THE RECORD, I JUST WANT TO STATE AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH THE ZONING. IF IT WERE VOLUNTARY, IF WE WERE GRANDFATHERED IN. BUT THE IDEA THAT YOU'RE GOING TO COME IN AND FORCIBLY REZONE OUR PROPERTY, I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE HAD NO NO OTHER REQUESTS TO SPEAK. SO WE WILL REQUEST TO SPEAK IF YOU DON'T MIND. OKAY. I'LL FILL OUT MY FORM IN JUST A MINUTE OKAY? OKAY. MY NAME IS RENA HARDIMAN. I LIVE IN NORTHLAKE. I'M A SEVENTH GENERATION TEXAN, FIFTH GENERATION IN DENTON COUNTY, AND I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING QUITE LIKE THIS FORCED ZONING THING. OKAY, MR. NOLAN WAS THE BRAVE PERSON ON THIS COUNCIL. I UNDERSTAND YOU WEREN'T HERE LAST TIME. MR. ESPOSITO, I THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU DID ASK, THOUGH. BUT HE WAS THE BRAVE PERSON THAT VOTED IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT TEXANS DO.
THAT IS WHY THE STATE OF TEXAS IS SO AMAZING. IT'S WHY WE LEAD THE NATION AND PARTS OF THE WORLD IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND SOME OTHER THINGS. YOU CAN'T GO AROUND FORCING PEOPLE INTO A ZONING AND TAKING AWAY FROM THEM THE USE OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT COMPENSATING THEM FOR THEM, FOR WHAT YOU'RE TAKING AWAY. AND WHAT YOU'RE TAKING AWAY IS, IS FOUR TIMES WHAT YOU'RE TAKING AWAY WITH RURAL RESIDENTIAL. OKAY. SO WHEN YOU GO FROM FIVE ACRE MINIMUMS TO 20 ACRE MINIMUMS, YOU'RE TAKING THE USE OF THAT PROPERTY AWAY FROM US. ASK YOURSELF THIS WHY IS THIS ROOM EMPTY? EXCEPT FOR DOCTOR MICHAEL SAVAGE AND MYSELF? IT'S EMPTY BECAUSE IT WAS DANGEROUS TO GET HERE. THE ROAD CONDITIONS ARE DANGEROUS. Y'ALL HAVE, WHAT, 1 OR 2 PEOPLE? NOT YET. DANNY'S NOT HERE, AND MR. NOLAN'S NOT HERE. WHY IS THAT? IT'S BECAUSE IT WAS DANGEROUS TO GET HERE. YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT THE WHOLE STAFF WAS HERE TODAY. BECAUSE I KNOW THEY WEREN'T. BECAUSE I CALLED UP HERE EARLIER TODAY, AND THEY WEREN'T HERE EITHER. BUT THEY EXPECT THE CITIZENS TO TO GO THROUGH DANGEROUS ROAD CONDITIONS TO GET HERE, TO FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING.
WE'RE FIGHTING FOR OUR RIGHTS. AND I TELL YOU WHAT, I TALKED TO A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE TODAY, AND THEY TOLD ME I COULD SPEAK FOR THEM. BOB WEST DOESN'T WANT THIS. HE'S AGAINST IT. HE AND HIS WIFE, DARLENE, THEY OWN THE CORNER OF 407 AND AND AND AND FLORENCE ROAD AND SOME OTHER PEOPLE HAVE ASKED ME TO SPEAK FOR THEM. THEY DON'T WANT THIS. WE DON'T WANT THIS.
PLEASE DON'T RECOMMEND THIS TO COUNCIL BECAUSE COUNCIL GOES OFF YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
SOMETIMES THEY GO FOR IT AND SOMETIMES THEY GO AGAINST IT. BUT THIS IS NOT RIGHT. IT'S NOT RIGHT TO DO TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND I'M NOT TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO. UNDERSTAND? MY TONE IS A TONE OF FRUSTRATION BECAUSE OF WHAT THE TOWN IS DOING AGAINST ITS CITIZENS, AND THEY USE THE MASTER PLAN TO DEFEND THEIR POSITION WHENEVER THEY WANT TO, WHENEVER THEY DON'T WANT TO.
AND YOU WILL SEE THIS WHENEVER $1 BILLION DEVELOPER COMES TO TOWN, THEY WILL SAY THAT PART OF THE OF THE MASTER PLAN WAS JUST A SUGGESTION OR JUST A HOLDING ZONE. BUT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO TO US IS THEY WANT TO KEEP US FROM DEVELOPING OUR PROPERTY THE SAME WAY THAT THEY GAVE THE BILLIONAIRE DEVELOPER THE RIGHT TO GO 12.1 HOMES PER ACRE IN A PLACE THAT WAS RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL. AND THE TOWN HAD A RIGHT TO SAY NO TO THAT ZONING
[00:15:01]
CHANGE. OKAY. BUT THEY DIDN'T. AND NOW WE HAVE THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE. OKAY. AND SO I WOULD URGE YOU ALL KNOW THAT THIS ROOM IS EMPTY BECAUSE OF THE DANGEROUS ROAD CONDITIONS.THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT MORE PEOPLE HERE, BUT THEY CAN'T. AND I THANK YOU FOR SHOWING UP TO HEAR THIS, BUT Y'ALL SHOULD HAVE POSTPONED IT. AND ASK YOURSELF THIS IS THERE AN AGENDA ASSOCIATED WITH THIS FORCE ZONING TO MAKE YOU COME TO A MEETING WHERE THE ROAD CONDITIONS ARE DANGEROUS? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. WITH NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 545. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSAL FOR THE CHANGE THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER TONIGHT? OKAY. DO I HEAR A MOTION? JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE WE'RE ONLY DISCUSSING THE THE THE CHANGE IN THE SETBACKS TONIGHT. YES. THAT'S ALL WE ARE. WE ARE CONSIDERING HERE OKAY.
THAT IS EFFECTIVELY A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL WHAT YOU'RE DOING. SO THE ZONING CHANGES HAVE HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING. YES. THAT ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN BEEN OWNING THIS BOARD HAS ALREADY MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. OKAY.
COUNCIL HAD WAS TO VOTE ON THAT. THEY TABLED IT IN ORDER TO HAVE THESE SETBACKS REDUCED. YES.
AND FEBRUARY 12TH MEETING. THEY'LL CONSIDER YOUR RECOMMENDATION DEPENDING IF THERE'S SOME PEOPLE SPEAKING AGAINST REDUCING THE SETBACKS, I THINK. AND SO THEY'LL CONSIDER WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO WITH SETBACKS, APPROVE THAT FIRST AND THEN REZONE WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY YOU'VE ALREADY DECIDED ON. SO ALL YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW IS REDUCING THE SETBACKS OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE FIVE ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO UPDATE STANDARDS RELATED TO THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT. CASE NUMBER 25, UDC FOUR, AS RECOMMENDED. DO I HEAR A SECOND? I SECOND, THEN WE WILL VOTE.
[4.B. VOTE]
HAS EVERYONE VOTED AND SAVED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THAT BEING OUR LAST ITEM OF BUSINESS, WE WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING AT* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.