EDGG core members met virtually with David Cossum, Development Services Administrator with the City of Dallas. He was a great source of information and graciously provided his time to share his insight into the city’s processes. Here’s a summary of our meeting.
On the topic of issuing a permit for a temporary batch plant in the public right of way (right of ways are city owned properties within the highway areas themselves, and this is likely the alternative method of permitting for the applicant at Zacha Junction), we discussed how that process looks and what opportunities for public input exist. Essentially, we determined there is no notification of or input solicitation from the public of any kind. An applicant submits their request, and staff completes an administrative review using the standard Certificate of Occupancy (CO) review process. This is done by development staff exclusively, and does not include departments like Transportation, Public Works or the Office of Environmental Quality. Criteria that staff uses to approve or deny a temporary batch plant in the public right of way includes determining proximity of commercial and residential properties and adjacent land uses.
The applicant would obtain a temporary batch plant standard permit from the TCEQ (which also has no public notification requirement because the temporary plants require lower output thresholds), and the city relies on the TCEQ’s air authorization to require any appropriate air quality standards and nuisance mitigation strategies.We know that Pegasus Link (the entity awarded the LBJ East project by TxDOT) has already been approved by the TCEQ for a concrete batch plant standard permit for the LBJ East project area, but to staff’s knowledge has not yet applied for a CO with the city. We’ve asked for an LBJ East project update from the city’s Transportation staff. Residents are notified when the Building Inspection department issues a list Certificates of Occupancy, usually weekly after they have been issued.
On the topic of zoning designation and public notification, we asked for details about general zoning processes and those specific to Planned Development District 5. When staff considers whether to recommend approval or denial to council, adjacent land uses are the primary concern. PD5 is primarily a rail yard with “light industrial” uses, with some additional provisions (most of its industrial activities occur indoors). One of the provisions in PD5 prohibits any use that would “involve a process which would emit dust, objectionable odors or excessive noise”. In the instance of Zacha Junction, staff’s recommendation to approve the concrete batch plant may have been based on the applicant’s willingness to proactively perform dust mitigation (which is actually required of them by the TCEQ), the lack of alternative locations serviced by rail and staff’s added recommendation of a two-year operating limit. This was later changed to four years with a four year renewal by the City Plan Commission.
The language to require a minimum notification area of 500 feet is city ordinance. Increasing that area would likely require a change to city ordinance. Since this language comes from state law, we’d also need to engage the City Attorney’s office on whether the city’s language can meet the minimum requirements of that law while further requiring notification of a larger area. Outside of the city’s Early Notification list, there is no notification to residents, businesses or schools who are outside of the designated notification area (in this case 500 feet, but in some cases as little as 200 feet). City staff relies heavily on HOAs and neighborhood groups (like this one) to notify the community. Because mailed notifications are sent to the property owner listed on the last certified tax roll, renters and business tenants are excluded from being notified. The city has looked at modifying the notification process and favors an online method to the existing mailed letters and newspaper notifications. So it seems that both processes have room to evolve and improve.
We’re grateful to staff for their willingness to hear our concerns and look at these processes together. Also, we’re fortunate that Councilmember Blackmon has continued to hear our concerns and had staff participate in yesterday’s meeting. She also reached out to our core staff again today. We’re going to continue to engage her on ideas we have to increase transparency and inclusivity in the city’s processes and look forward to sharing more on these efforts soon.