Original story posted Jan. 3. Read the recap from Tuesday's meeting. Story updated March 2, 2017 to include a response from Missouri City's city attorney.
The Missouri City City Council approved at its
meeting Tuesday the contentious Briggs Tract housing development proposal, after
announcing in December that its Sept. 6 vote on the plan--deemed a denial at the time--actually was a vote of approval.
The confusion stems from the city’s interpretation of its zoning code and its municipal code. When engineering firm Jones | Carter requested the 95.34-acre site be rezoned so that developer Ashton Woods could build a 278-home subdivision, over 20 percent of the homeowners neighboring the land submitted written protests against the plan, citing concerns over potential traffic congestion and flooding.
Ashton Woods is proposing to rezone 95.31 acres in Missouri City.[/caption]
The ordinance to be considered tonight is identical to the one that failed in September, except for changes made to the language of the ordinance. Whereas the prior ordinance referred to a request to “change the zoning classification” of the land, the new ordinance refers to a request to “zone” the land.
According to the city’s
zoning map, those 95.34 acres carry the zoning classification, “suburban district.” The application submitted by Jones | Carter lists the land’s current zoning as, “suburban district,” and requests it be changed to “planned development.”
The city’s municipal code states that when that many property owners protest a zoning change request, the request requires at least 75 percent of the governing body to vote in favor in order for it to pass. At that Sept. 6 meeting, the council voted 5-2 in favor of the rezoning request, one vote short of the needed 75 percent super majority.
At the meeting, Missouri City City Attorney E. Joyce Iyamu cited the municipal code, and advised Council Members the super majority had not been achieved. Mayor Allen Owen said the proposal had failed.
Then, at its Dec. 19 City Council meeting, the city announced that the proposal actually did not require the super majority of six favorable votes, deeming the request to not be a change in the land’s zoning, but an assignment of the land’s zoning for the first time. Council Members voted at the Dec. 19 meeting to revise the Sept. 6 meeting minutes to show that the ordinance had actually been approved.
Missouri City officials did not return
Community Impact Newspaper's
request for comment.
In a
Dec. 27 interview with the
Houston Chronicle, Owen said it is possible to view the land as having never officially been zoned, because when the land was annexed into the city, it was classified, “suburban district,” which, per city code, is the default zoning classification given to all such annexed land.
The city’s municipal code states that land annexed to Missouri City shall be classified as SD suburban district until permanently zoned. However, the code calls for the city planning and zoning commission to zone the land, “as soon as practicable after annexation.”
The 95.34 acres were annexed in 1987.
Residents opposed to the building proposal have hired attorneys to represent them and packed the Dec. 19 meeting. When it was announced the city had done further research to determine whether the super majority was indeed necessary, those residents asked what prompted the further inquiry.
Owen refused to provide details, telling those residents to have their lawyer inquire with Iyamu, the city attorney.
“Even though the mayor told us on the record to go to the city attorney, the attorney said based on the recommendation of outside lawyers who are advising the city, she could not tell us anything more,” said Charles Irvine, co-counsel for homeowners who have brought a suit against the city in the matter.
Iyamu said on March 2 she was unable to disclose what lead the city to delve deeper into the meaning of the state code because it pertains to attorney-client privilege.
Ashton Woods is proposing to rezone 95.31 acres in Missouri City.[/caption]
The ordinance to be considered tonight is identical to the one that failed in September, except for changes made to the language of the ordinance. Whereas the prior ordinance referred to a request to “change the zoning classification” of the land, the new ordinance refers to a request to “zone” the land.
According to the city’s zoning map, those 95.34 acres carry the zoning classification, “suburban district.” The application submitted by Jones | Carter lists the land’s current zoning as, “suburban district,” and requests it be changed to “planned development.”
The city’s municipal code states that when that many property owners protest a zoning change request, the request requires at least 75 percent of the governing body to vote in favor in order for it to pass. At that Sept. 6 meeting, the council voted 5-2 in favor of the rezoning request, one vote short of the needed 75 percent super majority.
At the meeting, Missouri City City Attorney E. Joyce Iyamu cited the municipal code, and advised Council Members the super majority had not been achieved. Mayor Allen Owen said the proposal had failed.
Then, at its Dec. 19 City Council meeting, the city announced that the proposal actually did not require the super majority of six favorable votes, deeming the request to not be a change in the land’s zoning, but an assignment of the land’s zoning for the first time. Council Members voted at the Dec. 19 meeting to revise the Sept. 6 meeting minutes to show that the ordinance had actually been approved.
Missouri City officials did not return Community Impact Newspaper's request for comment.
In a Dec. 27 interview with the Houston Chronicle, Owen said it is possible to view the land as having never officially been zoned, because when the land was annexed into the city, it was classified, “suburban district,” which, per city code, is the default zoning classification given to all such annexed land.
The city’s municipal code states that land annexed to Missouri City shall be classified as SD suburban district until permanently zoned. However, the code calls for the city planning and zoning commission to zone the land, “as soon as practicable after annexation.”
The 95.34 acres were annexed in 1987.
Residents opposed to the building proposal have hired attorneys to represent them and packed the Dec. 19 meeting. When it was announced the city had done further research to determine whether the super majority was indeed necessary, those residents asked what prompted the further inquiry.
Owen refused to provide details, telling those residents to have their lawyer inquire with Iyamu, the city attorney.
“Even though the mayor told us on the record to go to the city attorney, the attorney said based on the recommendation of outside lawyers who are advising the city, she could not tell us anything more,” said Charles Irvine, co-counsel for homeowners who have brought a suit against the city in the matter.
Iyamu said on March 2 she was unable to disclose what lead the city to delve deeper into the meaning of the state code because it pertains to attorney-client privilege.
