SAN ANTONIO VESTED RIGHTS TASK FORCE
MINUTES
November 1,
2004
Susan Wright, Chair
Robert Hanley
Mitch Meyers
Carroll Schubert
Art Hall
Julian Castro
Dr. Francine Romero
Discussion of legal issues related to Texas Local Government Code Chapter 245 and related ordinances and legal theories, pursuant to Texas Government Code Section 551.071 (consultation with attorney).
The
Task Force concluded the executive session and convened in open session at 5:45
P.M.
2.
Deliberation and consideration of vested rights issues.
Definition of terms related to vested rights
were discussed as follows:
A)
Definition of a
“permit” is clearly identified in Chapter 245.
B)
A utility
contract is a “permit” but not a “project” unless the contract contains a
specific definition of a project.
C)
Definition of a
“project” is not yet determined and needs further discussion.
-
General
consensus that if you platted under 86715 then you are vested unless there is a
change in project.
-
A new project
should be defined in a “Project Affidavit”.
-
A differential
value should be defined in the Project Affidavit to measure the amount of
change permitted in a project without losing vested rights. This value may be
defined in terms of a percentage with a limit on the amount of acreage
involved. A different criteria may apply based on the size of land being
developed.
-
Follow
guidelines of an MDP.
-
Define a
“minor” amendment/change, i.e. moving streets, etc.
-
A change within
a certain % should not be deemed a “change in project”.
-
Outstanding
issues for a “change in project”:
1)
Impervious
cover
2)
Moving project
outward
3)
Moving a
project upward
The vested
rights process was discussed as follows:
- Additional historical data regarding plats from different time pds.
- The number of outstanding permits from “97-present and amount of affected acreage.
D) Aquifer issue needs to be addressed.
3. Public input
on vested rights issues.
Liza Gonzales with the
Greater Chamber of Commerce- Distributed a letter and stated position of the chamber requesting adequate time for
public input to the committee before moving on recommendations to Council.
Richard Alles representing the Agua Aquifer Guardians- Distributed a hand out regarding the appeal process. Made recommendations to publicly post a notification of each vested rights application, a right to appeal to the Planning Commission, as well as to City Council, in order to implement ordinances that protect the public’s health, safety and welfare.
Geert Aeerts- The focus should be on the long term goal of the
region, which is water, land and air. Grandfathering is bad for these long term
goals.
Mr Cortez, a member of the Alamo Group
of the Sierra Club- Does not want an ordinance passed that will deny citizens
the right to appeal grandfathering. Aquifer protection should be strengthened
since current ordinances were passed with public input & support.
Bill Kaufman- There should be a format that is specific so it is
easily understood. Supports public notice but is against a public appeal
process since it is costly to the developer.
Would like to give more input after reviewing a draft of the written
recommendations made by the Vested Rights Task Force.
End of public input- 7:00P.M.
Continuation of item 2. Deliberation and
consideration of vested rights issues.
“Consent Agreement” was discussed as follows:
A)
City
Attorney agreed to rework the proposed language to allow consent agreements for
statutory claims, as well as for common law claims.
Adjourned at 7:30 P.M.
Summary of
Outstanding Issues to be discussed at the next meeting:
New Vested Rights Application/Project
Affidavit form.
Definition of “project”, “change in
project”, & “completed project”.
How do we deal with pre 1997 permits
without an expiration date?
Discuss aquifer issue
Approved:
Susan M. Wright, Chair
Attest:
Andrew Martin
City Attorney