ALPINE — The City of Alpine’s building official, Robert Ruckës, approached City Council members at a meeting Tuesday night to seek clarification on a recently-approved ordinance relating to the city’s zoning policies and procedures.
The ordinance was originally presented to council on May 21 — after winning unanimous support from the planning and zoning commission (P&Z) — with the intent of removing a provision in the city code that “provides the ability for the city council or the planning and zoning commission to initiate spot zoning, or non-contiguous, zoning designation,” according to meeting minutes. Spot zoning — a new zoning classification being given to a property that is incompatible with adjacent lots — is illegal in the state of Texas.
At that time, Ruckës explained to council members that the goal of the building services department was to ensure that citizens were following proper procedures when applying for a potential rezone of their property. Rather than approach council members directly, then potentially make it onto a council meeting agenda, Ruckës said the building services department preferred to meet with citizens first to explain the process to them, educate them on what constitutes an illegal spot zone and collect the required application fee. From there, applications go to P&Z then to council members for ultimate approval.
P&Z is currently updating the city’s zoning map to reflect all of the rezones that have taken place since 2013, when the map was last updated. The city is also considering the creation of a Comprehensive Plan, a document that would help guide future development.
At the May 21 council meeting, when council members reviewed the original ordinance, they largely agreed that they did not want to be out of compliance with the state law but that they wanted to retain power over rezoning decisions. After some back and forth with City Manager Megan Antrim and Ruckës, Councilmember Rick Stephens motioned to approve the ordinance as presented with two amendments to allow for a potential noncontiguous zone in the case that it is either “in alignment with the Texas Supreme Court established guidelines,” or “as outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.”
Councilmembers Reagan Stone and Eva Martinez also voted in favor of the motion, so it passed 3-2. The directive to add the amendments was given to the city manager, who voiced her support for council members not limiting their options relating to rezoning given a forthcoming Comprehensive Plan.
The amended ordinance came back to council in June, and went through first and second readings on August 6 and 20, at which time it was formally adopted.
On Tuesday, Ruckës — after reviewing council meeting agendas, minutes and versions of the ordinance — expressed concerns that the council had unknowingly passed a version of the ordinance that did not match their original intent.
He took issue with the ordinance initially being “approved as presented” yet kicked back to P&Z, assigned a different ordinance number, and the phrase “initiated by the council or the planning and zoning commission” never being struck out as it was in the original copy.
“What was presented on May 21 isn’t what [passed], it was a completely different ordinance,” Ruckës said. “I just want to make sure that what y’all are voting for is exactly what’s getting put through.”
The final ordinance that passed does state that the ability of council members or P&Z to initiate a spot zone is removed “with exceptions,” the Texas Supreme Court and Comprehensive plan exceptions.
Council members thanked Ruckës for bringing the matter to their attention. They affirmed that their intention was to follow the procedure recommended by Building Services, where the department is on the frontlines of rezone requests, but ultimate authority to approve or not lies with City Council.
“I don’t want council to lose the ability to do a spot zone, I think in rare and extraordinary cases, that might actually be needed,” Councilmember Darin Nance said. “But that should totally go through the process of starting with you guys.”
Antrim said the issue relates to an ongoing initiative she’s working on to establish standard operating procedures for city departments. City Secretary Geo Calderon told council members that the ordinance adoption was “legislatively correct.” “It’s a valid ordinance,” Calderon said.
Ruckës disagreed, and said that the ordinance, because it was technically approved as presented, should have been amended but gone on to a second reading. “What they initially voted on never got back to them,” Ruckës said.
Calderon said because the change was “substantive,” a new ordinance number was assigned. He said council members had plenty of time — two weeks — to review the amended ordinance and bring up any issues.
Ruckës said as a citizen he is concerned that this scenario had occurred with other ordinances in the past. Councilmember Stone said he believed that the current council and administration is making progress, and that he values both Calderon and Ruckës’ feedback, stating Ruckës is the “best” building official the city has had in a long time. (Ruckës is the eighth building official in the past seven years.)
“I’m guaranteeing a lot of bad things have been done in this council — not by this council, but by tons before us — it’s been a mess,” Stone said. “I understand this is getting to you a bit, but the whole point is to clean up the ordinances, help you do what you want to do.”
Council members did not take any action to rescind or re-do the zoning ordinance that Ruckës took issue with. Councilmember Nance echoed Stone’s sentiments to Ruckës for bringing the issue up, stating “more eyes is good,” and “hold us accountable for it.”