City Council Sounds Off On "Loophole" Allowing Condos In Some Neighborhoods

Some City Council members seemed blindsided by a Planning Department ruling that allows developers to build condominiums in neighborhoods that have a prevailing lot size ordinance. The ordinance was passed in 2002 as a way non-deed restricted neighborhoods could prohibit sub-division of lots and preserve their character. City Council was confronted by angry homeowners from Sunset Heights who had signed on to the ordinance but were facing a development of condominiums on two combined lots in their neighborhood. The ruling determined that the ordinance did not apply to the combining of lots, only to the dividing of lots, and since no lots were being subdivided the condominium plan was approved.

"Neighbors come to the city and ask how they can protect the neighborhood," said Council Member Sue Lovell at the Nov. 14 City Council meeting, "and we tell them how, and they find out our advice is not as good as a developers who goes out and hires someone to find loopholes in ordinances we have written."

The frustration was evident as Council Member Adrian Garcia said, "I am disappointed that the Planning Commission or the Planning Department and the Legal Department did not call myself...on the district report or the regulation chair or the mayor - there wasn't any dialog about how this issue was going to affect the neighborhood and the intent - the intent of the neighborhood was very clear - there is nothing lost in the interpretation - yet this item thus far is just to see us embarrassed."

Council Member Pam Holm spoke of accountability for decisions. "Whether it is an issue of planning and we still haven't learned - this happens over and over and over again from appointed boards and there is no accountability from the policy makers to make any changes to it or to be able to serve our citizens. What needs to be done in order to have reviewal by the policy making body that represents the citizens of the city of Houston when really bad decisions are made or inappropriate decisions that are bound and circumvented because of political loopholes or policy loopholes?"

Council Member Peter Brown: "We have in this city a lot size for these simple townhouses - 1400 square feet. We've known for a long time that if a developer wants to build a townhouse on a 1200 square foot lot what do they do? They call it a condominium. So we've known for a long time that the way to wiggle out of the minimum lot size is you go to condominium ownership."

Council Member Lovell: "When we are writing these ordinances do we need to go out and hire those developers' attorneys to find the loopholes so we can figure out how to find them before we ever promise our neighbors that we are giving them ordinances to protect the neighborhood? We need to do a much better job when we write our ordinances."

To attempt to address the deficiencies, the Planning Commission's Subcommittee on Neighborhood Preservation was chosen to evaluate and recommend changes to ordinances to make them more protective of neighborhoods. The Subcommittee was composed of Commission members and neighborhood representatives. The recommendations, however, were compiled by the Planning Department staff. There has been criticism that the Planning Department was influenced by developers who were

allowed to meet with them before the subcommittee had a chance to vote on the recommendations. It was claimed that the Planning Department presented a "watered down" version of the recommendations after meeting with some developers.

After the recommendations for ordinance revisions are completed and voted on by the Planning Commission, they will be sent to a City Council committee and eventually to City Council for a vote. Some preservationists are worried that the recommendations to change the process may never make it to a council vote, given the influence of developers.

Unfortunately, the proposed changes do nothing to address the so-called "loophole" in the prevailing lot size ordinance. The Planning Department says that the ordinance was never intended to prevent multi-family housing. They admit they have done a poor job of communicating that fact to neighborhoods, but have vowed to educate the public better in the future.

(Near Northwest Banner, December 4, 2006)