The citizens of Fate have made their views known time and again to our City Council that they do not want any increases in multi-family construction. Legitimate reasons include increased traffic, crime and strains on infrastructure that will inevitably lead to increases in taxes.
We are told that change is coming whether we like it or not. We are told that there is nothing we can do about it. And we are told that property owners have the right to sell their property to developers who have the right to build whatever they want.
So the time has come to explain why all these excuses are false and to provide a solution. But to get there we must first discuss what zoning laws are, and how they came to be.
The Origin of Zoning
The first zoning law was enacted in 1916 in New York City and marked a pivotal moment in urban planning history, setting a precedent that would reverberate across cities and towns worldwide. The zoning law, known as the New York City Zoning Resolution, was a response to the rapidly changing urban landscape and the need to regulate land use in a more systematic and organized manner.
Prior to 1916, New York City was experiencing the effects of rapid industrialization and population growth. Skyscrapers were becoming a prominent feature of the cityscape, and concerns were arising about the effects of these towering structures on public health, access to sunlight, and the overall quality of life. Additionally, the haphazard mix of land uses in close proximity was causing conflicts between residential, commercial, and industrial activities.
Then, in 1915, when the 42-story Equitable Building was erected in Lower Manhattan, the need for controls on the height and form of all buildings became clear. Rising without setbacks to its full height of 538 feet, the Equitable Building cast a seven-acre shadow over neighboring buildings, affecting their value and setting the stage for the nation’s first comprehensive zoning resolution.
The 1916 New York City Zoning Resolution introduced several groundbreaking concepts that laid the foundation for modern zoning laws:
- Use Districts: The law divided the city into different use districts, each with specific regulations governing the types of activities allowed. These districts included residential, commercial, and manufacturing zones. This segregation of land uses aimed to prevent incompatible activities from coexisting in close proximity.
- Height and Setback Regulations: One of the most notable features of the law was its establishment of height and setback regulations for buildings. To address concerns about overshadowing streets and blocking sunlight, the law required buildings to be set back from the street after a certain height was reached. This provision aimed to ensure that adequate light and air reached the street level.
- Bulk Regulations: The law introduced restrictions on the bulk of buildings, including factors such as the ratio of building area to lot size. This was intended to prevent the construction of overly massive structures that could overwhelm their surroundings.
- Open Space Requirements: The zoning law mandated the provision of open spaces, such as plazas or courtyards, in certain types of developments. This provision aimed to enhance the quality of urban life by providing residents with communal spaces for relaxation and recreation.
- Non-Conforming Use: The law also addressed existing buildings and uses that did not comply with the new zoning regulations. This introduced the concept of “nonconforming use,” allowing pre-existing uses to continue even if they didn’t conform to the new zoning requirements. However, changes to non-conforming buildings often had to adhere to the new regulations.
The 1916 New York City Zoning Resolution had a profound impact on urban planning and development practices worldwide. It served as a model for other cities grappling with similar challenges, and the concepts it introduced became integral to the formation of zoning laws in various municipalities.
As cities around the globe faced the complexities of urban growth and development, they recognized the need for similar regulations to manage land use effectively, encourage orderly growth, and ensure the well-being of their citizens.
Today, zoning laws remain a cornerstone of urban planning, providing a framework that shapes the physical layout of cities, towns, and communities. While the specifics of zoning regulations vary from place to place, the principles established by the 1916 New York City Zoning Resolution continue to guide urban planners, architects, developers, and policymakers as they seek to strike a balance between progress and preservation.
The Laws of Texas
Zoning laws in Texas, like those in many other states, are designed to regulate land use and development to promote orderly growth, protect property values, and ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of communities. However, the basis and structure of zoning laws in Texas can vary due to the state’s unique legal framework and historical background.
Home Rule Cities vs. General Law Cities:
One key aspect of zoning laws in Texas is the distinction between Home-Rule cities, like Fate, and general law cities. Home-Rule cities, typically those with a population of over 5,000, have more autonomy in creating and implementing their own zoning ordinances. General law cities, on the other hand, have zoning authority granted by the state and are subject to state-imposed limitations.
Dillon’s Rule and Zoning:
Texas follows the legal principle known as Dillon’s Rule, which means that local governments (cities and counties) only have the powers that are explicitly granted to them by the State. This impacts zoning in Texas because local governments must derive their zoning authority from specific state statutes. As a result, the establishment and structure of zoning laws in Texas are largely influenced by state legislation.
Zoning Enabling Acts:
Zoning authority in Texas is granted through what are called “Zoning Enabling Acts.” These are state laws that outline the framework under which cities and counties can create and enforce zoning regulations. There are different versions of these acts, one for general law cities and one for home rule cities, reflecting the distinction in their regulatory powers. Let’s just stick to the Home-Rule cities, because that is where our City abides.
Zoning Ordinances:
In home-rule cities, zoning ordinances are passed by the city council. These ordinances define different zoning districts (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) and specify the types of activities allowed in each district, along with regulations for building heights, setbacks, lot sizes, and other factors.
Variances and Special Exceptions:
Like many states, Texas zoning laws often include provisions for variances and special exceptions. A variance allows property owners to deviate from certain zoning regulations due to specific hardships or unique circumstances. Special exceptions, also known as conditional uses, permit specific uses within a particular zoning district if certain criteria are met.
Public Input and Due Process:
In line with democratic principles, Texas zoning laws usually require public hearings and community input during the zoning process. This allows residents and stakeholders to voice their opinions, concerns, and suggestions before zoning changes are finalized. Due process ensures that property owners are given the opportunity to contest zoning decisions if they believe their property rights are being unfairly restricted.
The Fate Town Charter
The Town Charter of Fate outlines the creation of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission and stipulates their duties and powers. Among these powers is the directive to: “Make proposals to the City Council to amend, extend and add to the Comprehensive Plan for the physical development of the City”. However it must not be understated that the capacity of the P&Z is only as an “advisory” role to the Council, where all final decisions are made.
The P&Z was originally created with 5 members and now stands with 7 members; All appointed by the City Council and serve for terms of 2 years. The current members of the P&Z Commission as of publication are: Karen Kiser, Aaron Jackson, Steve Dann, Tyler Bushman, Jeffrey Tathje, Kerry Wiemokly, and Daryell Harmon.
Here’s the really important part… Under Sec. 7.03 (2) The commission shall have the full power to:
(A)Exercise the authority of the Commission as provided by State law, this Charter and City ordinances; and
(B)Make reports and recommendations relating to the Comprehensive Plan and development of the City. [Emphasis added]
In short, this means that the P&Z doesn’t need to wait for the Council to give them directions or instructions; the Commission can start their own inquiry into the Comprehensive plan on their own and if they choose to make a recommendation to the Council for changes, they have every right to do so under Texas Law and our own Town Charter.
Recommended Recommendations
Too often, Town Commissions simply follow directives given to them by the Council. They very rarely take matters into their own hands. Often because they don’t understand that they have the right to do so… and that ignorance is just fine with the Council. But they have every right to take matters into their own hands if they have strong leadership and the guts to rub against the City Council … who appointed them.
The Fate Planning & Zoning Commission should take it upon itself to begin a top-down review of the Comprehensive Plan and evaluate how this plan meets the desires of the community of citizens… which is quite clear. End New Multi-Family Zoning.
Once the Commission has come to the rational decision to end Multi-Family Zoning, they can make a recommendation for the City Council and place the item on their agenda whether they like it or not.
The Mayor and Council are the Problem
Being realistic, this is where the initiative is likely to die. Mayor David Billings has demonstrated time and again that he is in full support of the urbanization of Fate. He is a grand proponent of StrongTowns.org, a leftist-run organization whose stated goals are to urbanize small towns.
The mayor is supported by the City Manager, Michael Kovacs, who is also a leftist who follows the Strong Towns philosophy and has hired a leftist Planning and Development Director named Ryan Wells. All of these individuals support the expansion and urbanization of Fate.
None of this is a secret. Even the town’s website displays a near-carbon copy of the Strong Towns agenda…word for word. The town even pays for the membership of a couple of employees to Strong Towns.
The Solution
The ultimate solution to the problem is simple, but extremely difficult to accomplish.
It begins with the systematic removal of Councilmen and replacing them with individuals who have the courage and will to change the Comprehensive Plan. Ultimately, they all must go because none of them has shown the courage to do what is right. This will take two years as it encompasses the removal of four councilmen to gain a majority.
The next Councilmen that are up for re-election, and must be removed are:
- Heather Buegeler – Place 1 – Expires in May 2024
- Jim DeLand – Place 5 – Expires in May 2024
- Allen Robbins – Place 4 – Expires in May 2025
- Lance Megyesi – Place 6 – Expires in May 2025
Also, Mayor David Billings, who walked in to office without spending a single nickel and getting a single vote from a citizen, and whose term expires in May 2025, must be replaced without question.
With the removal and replacement of these individuals with persons who are willing to represent the will of the people, they can legally amend the Comprehensive Plan to eliminate all future Multi-Family Zoning. That’s it … it’s just that simple.
I would also recommend going a step further and would recommend replacing the City Manager with someone who shares the values of the citizens of Fate. Someone who knows how to budget a town without future growth to cover the cost of their poor decisions. There are plenty of other reasons to replace the City Manager, which I will not delve into in this article.
Conclusion
So this is the solution. Henceforth, anytime comments are made on social media about how “we can’t do that” or “What’s your solution?” I will direct their attention here. The law says that we can do this. We have every right to do this. The question is, do we have the will to do this?