After the staff in Dallas proposed to eliminate citizens’ ability to delay zoning changes, the city council decided to side with the residents.
Dallas Council Rejects Zoning Delay Ban
City of Dallas staff proposed cutting residents’ ability to postpone zoning hearings, citing inefficiency in approving new development. However, in an August 13 meeting, the city council sided with concerned citizens – rejecting this measure 14-0.
The council specifically voted down Public Hearing 2, to consider eliminating Dallas City Code 51A-401(e) – which allows residents to delay zoning hearings by paying a $150 fee.
Numerous residents expressed concerns that stripping this provision could weaken neighborhoods’ recourse against rezoning.
“Today, the recommendation is to take away the voice of resident taxpayers altogether, and not allow them to request a postponement on a zoning case in their neighborhood,” resident Karen Roberts said in the meeting. “Is the voice of resident taxpayers no longer important?”
Others supported the measure, saying the current code allows lone citizens to stall citywide progress.
“If that policy didn’t exist, nobody would make the argument that a single citizen in a city of over 1 million should be able to slow down the business of the entire city for $150,” said resident Roy Atwood. “What ‘pay to delay’ does is add uncertainty for homebuilders, which raises financing and ultimately housing prices.”
Dallas mistakenly issued 19 building permits last year – then halted construction, as they violated neighborhood zoning restrictions, as The Dallas Express previously reported. Some projects had already been completed at the time.
Who’s Driving the Push for Change?
Councilman Paul Ridley emphasized three “crucial but critical questions” — Who is pushing this, why, and what would it mean for residents?
“Who is really behind this? It is staff that is pushing this forward. It was not residents that asked for this,” Ridley said. “If you’re like me, you have received dozens of emails. In at least my case, 100 percent were opposed to this change.”
One reason behind this proposal is “efficiency,” Ridley said, as planners are overwhelmed with tasks like stuffing envelopes. But he said, “The department has a machine that can automate this.”
“I am shocked that they are using professionals’ time to stuff envelopes. That is not a justification for changing our policy and disenfranchising residents,” he added.
Another reason cited for the policy change is “certainty” in the zoning process. According to Ridley, the current process offers more certainty for concerned citizens, as otherwise, they may have to plead with the planning commission or city council to postpone rezoning.
“It will not eliminate any delays in the process; it is used so sparingly,” Ridley said. “This is a rarely-used procedure, but it’s a vital safety valve for our neighborhoods.”
If the city cut residents’ abilities to postpone zoning hearings, according to Ridley, it would prevent them from having the time to understand, organize, or express their opinion. “We must maintain this right, and I ask for your support,” he said.
Delay or Deny?
Councilwoman Gay Donnell Willis moved to postpone the item until September, saying the council needs more time to understand the issue and incorporate public feedback.
“I request holding this item under advisement to be sure staff can incorporate the feedback from the public and from the council, in order to shape a better potential solution to address those concerns,” Willis said.
Councilman Adam Bazaldua supported Willis’ motion to delay the item, calling it “sensible.”
But Councilwoman Cara Mendelsohn said she opposed the motion.
“It’s actually ironic that we would be asking to delay something, so what – more research could be done, more solutions could be had, more people could work together?” Mendelsohn said. “That’s the very thing that this delay for the residents was intended to do.”
When zoning cases face delays, it is more often due to issues with developers or the city – not concerned residents, according to Mendelsohn.
“I didn’t see staff asking or addressing those much longer delays. Instead, it’s again about taking away the rights and the voice of the residents,” she said. “I think it’s very clear that we are elected to represent the residents and be their voice.”
Mayor Pro Tem Jesse Moreno echoed Mendelsohn’s point and said it was “ironic” to consider postponing the proposal. The motion to delay the item ultimately failed 6-9.
Council Clash: Upholding Residents’ Zoning Rights
Councilman Bill Roth voiced support for keeping citizens’ right to postpone zoning hearings.
“I think that this is a very essential, protected right for all the individuals involved in the process,” he said. “I would strongly encourage my colleagues to vote to deny the removal of this ordinance.”
But Bazaldua expressed concern that the denial motion was overly broad.
“I will be voting against the denial, and wish that our body would take a little bit more care and due diligence in the policy decisions that we make in this horseshoe,” he said.
But Bazaldua was attending online, and he logged off during the vote. So he was counted “absent when vote taken.”
After the council voted to keep the current provision, some residents celebrated on Nextdoor. “By voting no, council members reaffirmed their commitment to public engagement and transparency in city planning,” one user wrote.