Ellis County hears opposition from neighbors, industry as it moves to tighten outdoor‑business rules

Ellis County Commissioners Court held a public hearing Aug. 19 on proposed amendments to Minute Order 465.22 — the county’s outdoor‑business regulations — and directed staff to prepare a final version that narrows expansion relief for existing operations and removes a newly proposed variance section before a future vote.

Alberto, the county’s development staffer, told the court the changes are intended to “clean up” permitting language, add definitions introduced in the 2022 update and extend the renewal window so businesses may begin applying 60 days before a permit’s expiration. “We grandfathered under the 2006 regulations if approved,” he said, explaining the draft’s treatment of preexisting operations.

Attorney J.D. Foster, representing business interests, sought clarification about grandfathering and the practical effect of the 60‑day rule, asking whether the change would force active businesses to reapply immediately if the order is adopted. Alberto answered that the 60‑day window is measured from a permit’s expiration date (not from adoption), which commissioners asked staff to clarify in the final motion.

Neighbors and operators focused on HHLR Metals’s site near Waxahachie. Theo Cuellar, an HOA president, said nearby residents are concerned that “the mounds just keep on growing” and asked what limits exist on fence height and storage piles. County staff said inspectors have been monitoring the site and sent the company a notice with an Oct. 1 compliance deadline; staff also noted existing regulations set an 8‑foot minimum but previously did not list a maximum height.

Arthur Bynon of HHLR Metals said the business has expanded, taken steps to invest in equipment and worked with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and that the company is committed to reducing pile heights over time. “We will continue to try to do what we can to make that as good‑looking of an environment as we can,” he told the court.

Commissioners debated four options in the draft for how to treat expansions by existing permit holders. Option 2 — requiring only the expanded area to meet the new Section 2 requirements — drew broad support as a middle ground between full site‑wide retrofitting and complete grandfathering. Several members expressed concern that the proposed variance section (Section 4) would create subjective standards that could invite inconsistent decision‑making.

Rather than adopt the order on the spot, the court directed the county attorney’s staff to prepare a revised ordinance that deletes the proposed variance section, adopts option 2 for expansion, and explicitly states that the 60‑day renewal window is counted from a permit’s expiration date; the amended text will be presented at a future meeting for formal action.

The hearing included technical discussion of enforcement limits — county staff said local authority does not extend to business hours, air quality, or some noise matters — and several commissioners urged careful, specific language to avoid inadvertently stripping the county of discretionary authority.

Next steps: staff will produce the redlined amendment reflecting the court’s directions; the item will return to the court for a formal vote following publication and the clerk’s preparation of the updated order.