Loading...
14 - RECYCLING PERMITItem No. 14 memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: John Godwin, City Manager SUBJECT: RECYCLING PERMIT DATE: April 10, 2015 BACKGROUND: On May 29, 2014 I met with a group of owners from Tri -State Iron and Metal Co. They described a new type of recycling drop -off "store" they were hoping to introduce. For it to be successful, they believed, it needed to be in a retail /commercial area with high traffic counts. We were assured no processing would occur onsite. At that point they said Paris was one of about four cities they were considering for their new concept. On May 30, I notified the city council of the meeting and the possibility of a recycling drop -off facility. On June 21 I received correspondence from Ben Glick stating they had purchased land in Paris, though he did not say where. At about this time, Tri -State also provided a drawing of a likely facility, which very much had a commercial look to it. We were told there would be no pro- cessing on site and that all materials would be under roof. On June 25 a telephone conference was conducted between city staff and Tri -State to discuss the project in more detail and to give the developer more information on how to proceed. Specifically, we discussed the following matters: the proposed site was 4200 Lamar, which was zoned Commercial; addressing any curb cuts with TXDOT; meeting with the fire marshal about fire hydrants; landscaping requirements; flood plain issues; and approval authority. A meeting was held on July 8 between Tri- State, Joey Sleeper, Alan Efrussy, and Shawn Napier. They discussed these issues in more detail, and generally agreed to the following: Tri -State would send a letter outlining the operations and purpose of the facility; Mr. Sleeper would then send a "non - binding" (Adam Glick's words) zoning verification letter stating his belief that Commercial was adequate for the facility they were then describing; Mr. Napier was meeting with TXDOT about curb cuts; there was a fire hydrant within 500 feet, so another was not needed; and flood plain was not an issue. The city staff's main concerns were noise and stormwater runoff. Tri -State agreed they would be willing to hire an acoustical engineer to review plans and assist in designing sound barrier(s), line containers with rubber, and meet with the neighbors in advance and satisfy their concerns. Tri -State advised staff they intended to obtain a stormwater permit for the site, would likely cover the facility to prevent stormwater contacting materials, and install an oil /sediment interceptor onsite. On February 2, 2015 I asked if issues concerning noise and stormwater had been addressed as agreed in July, and was told by Mr. Glick that some had not. I subsequently learned that they had intentionally not met with neighbors -- contrary to our agreement. I also learned that they had changed the look and layout of the proposed facility, and added cars, batteries, and tractors to the types of items to be accepted, and that some almost certainly noisy processing would occur on site after all. STATUS OF ISSUE: The zoning error by city staff was based on an incomplete knowledge of the city's zoning ordinance. In many municipalities, when a new use is requested that is not specifically identified on the list of land uses, city staff studies the functions, especially in regards to issues such as traffic, noise, glare, stormwater, dust, etc. and plugs a use into a logical category. Mr. Efrussy, with over 40 years of experience, has done this many times in other jurisdictions. However, Paris's zoning ordinance, adopted in 1972, states that city staff has no such authority. Instead, the matter should have been presented to the planning & zoning commission for its review and recommendation, and then to the city council for assignment on the list of land uses by resolution (which was subsequently done). Unfortunately, based on Section 8 -109 of the zoning ordinance and the information initially provided by the developers, the development staff determined the recycling center could be allowed within Commercial and Light Industrial zoning districts, and failed to forward that determination to the P &Z and council. In turn, the developer was issued a building permit in error, which was subsequently revoked. All staff is very aware of the ordinance's restrictions, and no letters regarding development rights (even if labeled "non- binding ") shall be provided to any applicant or developer unless prepared and approved by the city attorney. BUDGET: NA RECOMMENDATION: Do not appoint a commission; we know what mistake was made, we know how it was made, we know who made it, and we have corrected it.