Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
El Campo council rejects temporary waiver of special‑use permit fee for private car sales
Summary
The council debated waiving the $250 special‑use permit (SUP) application fee for property owners who allow private vehicles for sale on their lots and ultimately rejected Resolution R2025-22; discussion centered on property rights, enforcement and distinguishing one-off private sales from commercial used‑car lots.
The El Campo City Council debated and ultimately did not approve Resolution R2025-22, which would have waived the $250 special‑use permit (SUP) application fee for 90 days from the March 24 adoption date for businesses or property owners now allowing private vehicles for sale on their property.
Staff told the council the SUP is a zoning process regulated by state law that requires public notice and Planning & Zoning review. A planning staff member explained the fee covers publication notices and the typical timeline: "The SUP process is zoning related, so it's regulated by state law. So we would process it like we do any SUP where it gets publicly noticed. It goes to PNC and it comes to you all," the planning staff member said. Staff proposed a 90‑day waiver of the $250 fee to allow current property owners to apply without paying while the city contacts affected properties.
Public comment opposed the rule change and fee. Dustin, a Wharton County resident, told the council he opposed the proposed restrictions and complained that permitting would make business harder: "I don't believe y'all should be making these ordinances. Y'all just making it harder for people," he said, adding concerns that the city was favoring established dealerships and imposing unnecessary costs on property owners.
Council debate focused on distinguishing isolated owner-permitted sales from commercial used-car lots and on enforcement. One council member suggested an alternative: allow a property owner to permit one or two private sales without the $250 fee if the owner provides written permission to validate activity; others raised concerns about enforcement and how code officers would distinguish temporary private sales from de facto used‑car lots.
A motion to approve Resolution R2025-22 as presented was made and seconded, but the motion failed. The transcript records that the motion failed; no roll-call tally is recorded in the audio transcript.
Council members asked staff to revisit the ordinance and bring back alternate language that could allow a property owner to permit a small number of private sales with proof of permission, and to publicize any future changes so property owners and affected businesses can comment before the item returns to the council.
