The Kyle Report

The Kyle Report

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Creekside Trail residents could have killed PUD

By planning ahead, the residents of Creekside Trail who showed up en masse at the Feb. 21 City Council meeting to protest a PUD planned for the terminus of that cul-de-sac could have possibly killed it.

All they had to do was gather the signatures of 20 percent of the property owners located within 200 feet of the affected property. I’m guessing there were only two property owners within 200 feet of the proposed PUD and those were the owners of the properties on either side of the proposed development. And both those owners made in-person protests during the Feb. 17 public hearing on the issue. A notarized written protest (in the form of a petition) would have worked a lot better and could have achieved what they wanted.

Here’s why: Section 211.006 (d) of the Texas Government Code states "If a proposed (zoning) change to a regulation or boundary is protested in accordance with this subsection, the proposed change must receive, in order to take effect, the affirmative vote of at least three-fourths of all members of the governing body."

A number of cities don’t even require a formal petition. By law, cities are required to notify property owners within 200 feet of a proposed zoning change. Many cities include a postage-paid returnable card with the notice asking the owners to signify on the card whether they are OK with the proposed change. If 20 percent of those cards say "no," a three-fourths vote is required.

In the case of the Kyle City Council that means five "yes" votes would be needed to enact such a change and this PUD passed with only simple majority. Of course, there’s always the possibility that, had the property owners submitted such a petition, that one of those nay voters — Becky Selbera, Shane Arabie or Daphne Tenorio — might have changed their vote. But then again they might not and the motion to approve the PUD would have failed.

Just sayin’.

No comments:

Post a Comment