Kyle needs another form of zoning denial

When it comes to zoning requests in Kyle, it’s pretty much a black-or-white, yes-or-no, decision. The applicant is either approved or denied. And if the applicant is denied, he or she is unable to revisit the decision for at least the next 365 days.

It seems to be there should be a shade of gray added to the mix. There are a few occasions, and I’ve seen them pop up here in Kyle, where members of the Planning & Zoning Commission or the City Council have a few problems with the zoning request. But since the only choices are approve or deny (or ask the applicant to withdraw the request, which is also not that satisfactory a solution) or possibly table (but I’ve never seen a commissioner or a council member move to table a zoning request until a certain date), the decision-makers are left with two unsatisfactory choices.

But there’s a simple solution. Kyle should institute a form of denial which, in other municipalities with which I have worked, is referred to as "Deny without prejudice." That means the applicant can come back to the deciding body for possible approval in 90 days. But here’s the key: The commissioners or the city council members have to elaborate exactly what their problems with the zoning request are and suggest ways the applicant can fix the problems within that 90-day window.

Let me give you a random, non-specific example. An applicant wants to get a parcel of land nudging a residential area zoned for retail services, or warehouse or a denser residential zoning. And let’s say a flood of residents from that residential area show up at the Planning & Zoning Commission and/or City Council hearing on the request to yell and scream that, if approved, the new zoning would be ugly, or cause too much traffic in their quiet neighborhoods, or drive down their property values. And let’s say some city officials are concerned about the possible strain the development could place on an already aging infrastructure in that area.

The opportunity is there to determine how many conversations the applicant has had with surrounding residents, business owners, what-have-you. Has the applicant presented them with drawings or scale models of what the project will look like? Has the applicant solicited possible compromise solutions to the problems addressed by the adjoining neighbors? Has the applicant discussed with the city different possible funding mechanisms that might be available to address the infrastructure concerns? Has the applicant considered redrawing the property lines and adjusting the plans just so to comply with city ordinances. Is there a way to block certain street access or construct new roadways to alleviate the traffic concerns? Has the applicant sought any studies to actually measure the effect the project might have on nearby property values? And if the commissioners or the council members determine that taking these additional steps during the next 90 days might produce an outcome more favorable to everyone concerned, a motion could be made to "deny the zoning request without prejudice," which would allow the applicant three months to fix the problems cited and return for what possibly could be a different outcome.

Just a recommendation I, for one, would like the city should consider.