Red Oak -Planning and Zoning Board/ Ordinances -part 1

[Amy Hedtke]

I was at the Red Oak P&Z meeting this past Monday. What a screwed up set of ordinances and planning. Trampling the rights of private property owners because “lots” of citizens want to see “certain types of establishments” along the I-35 corridor.
Tyranny by the Majority.
There’s a reason this country wasn’t set up as a straight democracy.
It would be nice to see some public SERVANTS who are as dedicated to protecting private property rights of The Minority as they are to implementing The Majority’s ideas about what to do with OTHER people’s assets.
case in point:
small piece of land sits on I-35 northbound, smack dab in the way of the proposed Loop 9 intersection. Nobody wants to develop it in case Loop 9 becomes a reality in the next few years [again]. This guy finally finds a business that is willing to set up understanding the risk: a Landscaping business.
So they draw up plans and approach the P&Z board. There’s a mobile home on the property they can touch up that will work for an office building, a pole billboard sign they can use, and they are trying to keep their investment minimal since P&Z will likely only approve it for 2-3 years, maybe 5 if he’s lucky.
To touch up the mobile home, they wanted to use cedar shingles and some masonry. Mind you– this is a successful landscape company that has been in business for over 30 years, not some risky start-up that has no idea what they are doing. P&Z insists they use ALL MASONRY on a TRAILER for the facing. You have GOT to be kidding me. ON A TRAILER.
“But we have to be fair to everyone, and that’s what the ordinances say”–well HELLOOO!!! welcome to Ordinancing yourself into a corner. sounds like it’s about time to change the ordinances to make it more flexible to deal w/ businesses on a case by case basis! Not every business needs the same sort of building, and Red Oak doesn’t need a bunch of cookie-cutter buildings so we look like a concrete communist compound.
Then they want the pole sign to be GONE and for these guys to put up a monument sign. Aside from the practicality of REUSING a perfectly workable sign [Reduce-Recycle-Reuse], this guy’s supposed to spend MORE MONEY on a SHORT TERM business arrangement?? For a property that isn’t bringing ANYTHING to Red Oak as it sits now??
AND — hang on folks, this is just the tip of the iceberg– they want them to pour CONCRETE for this short term outdoor landscaping business, when there’s already a decent parking and road area there. Concrete is great if you’re planning on SETTLING DOWN, but not if the City’s gonna kick you out in a couple years. Plenty of businesses do just fine w/ gravel and asphalt. Till the CITY gets ahold of them anyway.
And let’s not even get started on the whole “we don’t WANT a landscaping business there, so we’re DOING YOU A FAVOR by even considering this…” and “we MIGHT consider a short term or temporary type of approval….”
IT’s NOT YOUR PROPERTY!!!
If YOU don’t want a landscaping business there, then YOU buy the property!! I’m so sick of people using the gvt to get [what should be] capitalistic things done instead of using their OWN money.
And yes, i spent quite a bit of time at the meeting shooting off my mouth. I was pissed. I still am. I’m very thankful they [patiently? lol] allowed me to continue to speak, so i will grant Mr. Hanes and the members that. ;)

[Fed up in Red Oak]

PREACH IT!!

[texastony]

Some of the meetings just dont make sense to me .. LOL