Travis County Commissioners Court
October 9, 2007
Item 28
Number 28, consider and take appropriate action on request to amend chapter 82 of the Travis County code regarding public notice of non-residential developments. Just for the record, what's intended today is adoption of a draft policy that we would advertise, invite public comment and then have a followup in-court discussion later on, right?
>> that's correct.
>> what we asked you all to do last week was to tweak the draft language that we have before us, and I understand that you have done exactly that.
>> we have, and you have the latest draft that has been reviewed by the county attorney's office also. Chris will probably be with us shortly. So if there are other things that the court wanted to amend, this would be the -- otherwise be the -- what we would post as the subject of the public notice.
>> joe, let me ask this. In this particular advertisement of the changes to chapter 82, what is the time line? In other words, if we advertise as is these particular recommended changes for this -- in this particular proposal recommendation, what is the time line? In other words, you advertise in a newspaper or advertise -- how does it work?
>> understand the law just says it has to be posted in a newspaper of general circulation. It doesn't say how long that is. I think that's really the discretion of the court on how much public notice they want to have before adopting the new rule.
>> in what manner have we exercised that discretion in the past?
>> usually about two weeks.
>> okay. So --
>> before we go any further, let's bring chris up to date because that was really a legal determination and I'm not an attorney.
>> although you have been giving us good legal advice down through the years.
>> the issue is there any time period that the law obligates for public notice before adopting the amendment to the code.
>> I looked at the statute this morning and I didn't see an exact time period in the statute.
>> so if we could advertise this for one week and then if you put the notices in, would it be better for two weeks? I'm just trying to get a feel of what you think is enough time for us to come back to Commissioners court after the advertisement is posted.
>> I think, as I responded to judge Biscoe, I think two weeks has been our standard.
>> okay.
>> is that the same standard we're going to apply on the applicants for giving notice to homeowners associations and fire marshals and whatnot?
>> we're going to need proof that they have done that before we --
>> I'm just trying to go through what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
>> I would want them to do that first so that while the -- while the application is in the review process, that's when any discussions would be as opposed to at the end when it's about to be approved they get notice and the train has already left the station.
>> we can certainly make sure that it's done two weeks before it comes to Commissioners court so there is no doubt that what you hear, you will be assured that the public had adequate he notification.
>> and within that arena, joe, how do we let the city of Austin and those particular folks in the title 30 be informed of what we're doing here if we're going to amend that because we have a single shop setting under 1445. And, of course, I think under that title 30 which we have the relationship with the city of Austin which would also have to I guess be put in the alert category that there may be some situations whereby they would have to amend their code. So would that notice of what we're doing today also be a part of the title 30 situation involving the city of Austin?
>> if -- if I may, if we want this code to be applied in city of Austin's e.t.j. But we have title 30, our interlocals with the city of Austin would call for us to send them a copy of the proposed code.
>> okay.
>> and they would have to be in agreement to that being amended and added to title 30.
>> okay. Okay. And I guess those other relationships also I guess with any other 1445 agreements that we have with the other municipalities in the future.
>> we would respectively as we developed joint codes with those other municipalities, we would make this a provision in the joint code from the very beginning.
>> judge, I -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. No, no, no, say what you were going to say.
>> I yield. So we advertise in the newspaper two weeks.
>> well, we'll do it periodically -- we'll allow two weeks -- we won't -- we'll probably put it in two Sunday newspapers.
>> okay. And you invite comments or what?
>> we would post it as a public hearing so that two weeks from today there will be a public hearing and you'll get comments at that point.
>> so you don't ask them to submit comments to t.n.r. Staff before a certain date.
>> we have two or three organizations that typically involve themselves in county regulations tacea, the home builders association and rico. We have formally transmitted this change and asked for comments. Yes, we have done that to what we consider the design community. And you have in your backup one set of questions that we got from the home builders. But I do not know of any other questions we received from the other two organizations. We can -- if you would like in our posting in the newspaper, we can solicit comments to come to t.n.r. As well as notice them that there's going to be a public hearing on whatever date you choose. So they can address you directly without necessarily coming to staff.
>> I guess that's what I would do. The difference is that if you receive written comments, we would expect to receive those as part of backup of the item in court.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> right. So you would anticipate a public hearing about when?
>> two weeks out. I mean, we would go ahead and choose a date two weeks from today, we'll post a public notices in the newspaper about the change, also solicit written comments to come to t.n.r., and we'll have whatever we have before we send the backup to you before that public hearing, you'll have in writing what we received as well as any comments that may come on that day of the public hearing.
>> but the deadline for the next paper advertising opportunity is when?
>> Thursday.
>> all right. So if you post -- if you do Thursday, then it's in the newspaper first on Sunday?
>> this coming Sunday. And then we'll post again next showers for the following Sunday, and then the Tuesday following the second Sunday newspaper is your public hearing.
>> I think you ought to allow one Tuesday between there.
>> that's fine.
>> that will effectively give us three weeks from now which is pretty fast. Okay.
>> if there are no other questions from court members, I would like to put this in the form of a motion, and I move that we direct t.n.r. Staff to post the draft policy amended in chapter -- well, in 82.201-h for the policy notification requirements for non-residential development applicants, and that this be posted in -- I guess which one would you post it in, joe, as far as the posting in the newspaper source?
>> I believe we usually post in the Austin american states man.
>> within the Austin american states man and post this for the number of times discussed here before the Commissioners court this morning. And also that we make sure that we send a copy of this to the city of Austin who also has a role in this under title 30 to put them on the alert that there is a possibility that the court is looking at amending chapter 82.201 and that regard. So -- and that it's come back to the Commissioners court for -- after the comment period is over that it comes back before the Commissioners court for adoption.
>> being on October 30th.
>> would that be October 30th?
>> three weeks. October 30th.
>> October 30th.
>> second.
>> so if the city of Austin takes no action if we adopt this rule, it will apply in unincorporated areas.
>> outside the 5-mile e.t.j.
>> outside the e.t.j. So it will not apply in the e.t.j.
>> that's right.
>> that would hold true to any municipality, I would assume. If they do not do that later on.
>> not exactly. Because we do not have a 1445 agreement with all of the municipalities. It will apply in the unincorporated area where there is no
>> [inaudible].
>> okay.
>> if I might add for permits, in the city of Austin e.t.j., those are still subject to chapter 82, not to title 30. So the possibility exists if this passes that the subdivision portion of the review will be subject to title 30 that does not -- or doesn't at this point have this public notices for non-residential. And then a site plan that comes in on that same application, it comes in and it's reviewed under chapter 82, so at that point we would be sending public notice.
>> okay.
>> any more discussion? If the city doesn't do it, it's just applicable in the unincorporated areas, you're really talking about a much smaller pool of groups to receive notice, aren't you?
>> uh-huh.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:31 PM