Barriers unintentionally created by the cities of Conroe and Montgomery are becoming tricky to navigate for local businesses and developers. Fast-paced updates in the past two years to fire and tree ordinances in attempts to control increased growth in the Lake Conroe area pose challenges to local property developers, who have been requesting variances from those requirements more frequently. “Variances are very complicated, and we take them very seriously,” said Nancy Mikeska, Conroe director of community development. “You cannot vary building codes, as they are under the International Building Code and relate to the health and safety of our citizens.” Both cities of Conroe and Montgomery are strategizing to streamline permit processes after a ramp-up in property development that both cities expect to continue. As more developers apply to build in the Lake Conroe area, more individual cases also request variances. “We are always looking to streamline the process,” Mikeska said. “It is fair to say the number of permits continue to be consistent with our growth.”

Costing time, money

Chris Cheatham, owner of Montgomery-based property development company Cheatham Management LLC, has been putting up buildings in the Montgomery area for 20 years, such as the Town Creek Village Apartments near Montgomery High School. “The [Montgomery] city administration is doing updates, I believe, in most cases to account for the growth,” Cheatham said. “[But] we’ve had an awful lot of new layers of ordinances that have created a burden for development and certainly an additional cost for the developer.” He said the ordinance changes implemented over the past two years, including a tree ordinance, a dark-sky lighting ordinance, and water and sewer impact fees­­—which Montgomery city officials said can total $4,100—have caused unintended consequences for developers. In the past, Cheatham requested a variance for a medical building along Hwy. 105 that he said had a snag with emergency driveway access, requiring him to rebuild part of an existing road that was already in bad shape. “I’m opposed to some of the ordinances they put in place, but once you learn how [the process] works and work within those bounds there is still incentive to do projects here,” he said.

Effects on development

In Conroe, three developments requesting variances—all initially denied—were on the city council’s Sept. 13 agenda, including an apartment complex, a subdivision and a business. The developer of the Lofts of Conroe, just north of downtown, requested to build up to the property’s lot line to add stairs and an elevator for emergency access—a new requirement to the updated fire code adopted by Conroe in 2013. The variance request died due to lack of motion at City Council Aug. 23, but passed Sept. 13 in a 3-1 split vote. "What happened there was a developer from out of town had a contractor project manager running the project, and he did not do what he was supposed to do," said Conroe City Council Member Jody Czajkoski, president of The Woodlands-based MHW Real Estate. Sept. 13 also saw a vote on the second phase of the Summer Wood subdivision in north Conroe, which failed due to lack of motion because the new fire code requires neighborhoods of its size to have two driveways. Czajkoski recused himself from the vote because MHW Real Estate represents that subdivision. Jeff Williams, an agent with MHW Real Estate, said at the Sept. 12 council workshop the front half of the property already has 100 homes, and the owner had plans since 2007 to develop 110 more homes on the back half—until seeing the new fire code. “It would be time-consuming to aggregate this property to put in a feeder road—[the owner] would be left with unusable land,” Williams said. “His only option is to develop residential and get this variance.” While variances can delay a project, some requests are quickly approved if they include simple adjustments to existing properties, such as the Starbucks Center along north Loop 336 east. On Sept. 13, the property owners received unanimous approval regarding a variance to remove trees, add parking above a water line and add another driveway. Virgata Property co-founder Scot Luther, owner of the Starbucks Center, said his company bought it before the city added a tree requirement in 2014. He said he learned of this ordinance during the process of buying the adjacent parking lot from Walmart. “We didn’t know about the new landscape ordinance, so we had to go through that process. We were a little afraid of it, but [City Council members] were reasonable, I thought, and worked with us,” Luther said. “They got what they wanted, landscaping and trees, and we got what we wanted—more parking.”

Updating the code

Montgomery hosted a meeting Sept. 14 to hear input from developers about streamlining the city’s property development permit process. Montgomery City Administrator Jack Yates said many developers were concerned about the tree ordinance requiring inspections that can cost between $7,000-$15,000. Seemingly small updates to the building codes like the tree ordinance can create a sticking point for developments midway through the process, he said. “It can take as long as up to a year [to obtain a building permit],” Yates said. “It’s not the process itself—the permit process itself is about a 90-day process—it depends on how quickly the developer is ready to proceed on their property.” As for Conroe, city officials intend to put together a variance board of local electricians, contractors, plumbers and construction workers to collect feedback and suggestions from industries affected by the changing ordinances. Mikeska also said she would like the city to implement a digital submission system for variances for businesses and developers. “When it comes to variances, they do take longer because they are more important, complicated and everyone needs them yesterday,” Mikeska said. “We are extremely busy, and all we can do is our best.”