Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Taylor County commissioners approve settlement with Pancho’s Cantina despite objections over attorney fees
Summary
After hours of debate over code requirements, parking and floodplain review, the Board approved a settlement with Pancho’s Cantina & Grill that grants setback and limited floodplain variances and requires structural recertification; the board also approved including payment of the applicant’s attorney fees, a point of contention among several commissioners.
Taylor County commissioners on April 6 approved a negotiated settlement with Pancho’s Cantina & Grill that would grant a setback encroachment variance and a conditional floodplain variance for ground‑level restrooms, while requiring an independent engineer to recertify the structure.
Staff presented “bullet points” of the proposed agreement, describing the variances and safety conditions, and said a professional engineer would review original plans and inspect the finished work to certify compliance with VE‑19/DFE construction standards. Staff also noted the contract would require breakaway walls, no utilities to those breakaway walls and flood‑flow vents.
The county attorney outlined contract details and raised concerns about insurance and venue language; he told the board the developer’s initial construction budget was listed as $9,000,000 and that the architect’s supplemental and additional services could add 15% on top of hourly billing. He also recommended that the board not agree to pay the applicant’s attorney fees.
Several commissioners pushed back on paying legal fees. One commissioner said the county should not be asked to cover the applicant’s attorney costs and called it unfair to county taxpayers. Another commissioner countered that, given repeated permitting disputes and the county’s desire to attract new businesses, making the applicant whole could send a positive message to entrepreneurs.
Planning and code staff warned the board that approving a settlement that bypasses variance‑appeal public hearings or ignores land‑development review could conflict with Chapter 42 of the county code and the county’s statutory obligations. A planner cautioned that improperly handled floodplain variances could expose the county to National Flood Insurance Program sanctions.
The meeting included public callers who raised parking and public‑safety concerns for nearby Hodges Park and Keaton Beach if the operation proceeds without sufficient on‑site parking. One caller described a scenario in which 16–20 additional cars could overflow park lots and create a hazard.
Despite the legal and policy concerns, Commissioner Moody moved to approve the settlement bullet points and to accept payment of the applicant’s attorney fees; Commissioner Feagle seconded. The chair called the vote and the board approved the motion (individual vote tallies were not recorded in the transcript).
Next steps identified by staff included drafting the formal settlement language consistent with the approved concepts, obtaining any requested engineering recertification paid for by the applicant, and preparing the written agreement for execution.
