Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the UDC Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff briefs Planning Commission on 2025 UDC changes required by Texas laws; no action taken
Summary
Development Services briefed the commission on multiple state bills changing local development rules — county permit exemptions, protest‑vote thresholds, small‑lot rules, home‑occupation relaxations, and multifamily/mixed‑use allowances — and said the package will go to the Zoning Commission on Sept. 2 and Council on Sept. 4; commissioners raised implementation and oversight questions.
Development Services staff briefed the Planning Commission Aug. 13 on a 2025 unified development code (UDC) amendment package meant to implement changes from the Texas Legislature. Staff said the item was for debriefing and required no formal commission action at the meeting.
Staff (identified in discussion as 'Logan') summarized several bills that drive the UDC changes. Key points included:
• County permit exemption (House Bill 3234): The law exempts county‑owned facilities from having to obtain city building permits; however, work must still meet applicable city building codes and must be certified by an engineer or architect licensed in Texas. Staff said existing interlocal agreements with Bexar County and the county fire marshal remain in place and that the city can request copies of the certifying documentation.
• Protest thresholds and notice (House Bill 24): The bill increases certain notice and sign requirements (for example, larger on‑site rezoning signs) and adjusts the way council handles owner protests. Staff said the law’s language is complex but effectively reduces the supermajority barrier for rezonings that increase housing units, making approval by simple majority more likely in those cases.
• Home occupations (HB 2464): The state no longer allows cities to bar employees or on‑site sales for home occupations, though cities may still enforce limitations that preserve neighborhood character — for example, prohibiting on‑street parking generated by the business and enforcing noise and other local rules.
• Small‑lot development (SB 15): For qualifying tracts (the staff brief said at least five acres, no recorded plat and zoned single‑family), the city cannot force minimum lot sizes above the state set floor; the law also allows certain flexible development standards for small lots and changes height/lot standards in those limited circumstances.
• Multifamily/mixed‑use changes (SB 840): The law allows multifamily or mixed‑use development on qualifying commercial/office/light industrial tracts and may allow conversion of existing buildings to multifamily without requiring traffic studies, mandatory construction improvements or utility upsizing beyond the project’s needs, except in specified protected areas (e.g., historic districts) and near military bases or airports.
Commissioners asked detailed implementation questions. One asked how the county exemption affects the city’s ability to inspect or require documentation; staff said the city could request the certifying engineer’s or architect’s letter and inspection notes, but the law removes the permitting requirement and relies on professional certification. Commissioners also asked whether SAWS and other utilities have been informed about the reduced power to require upsizing; staff said they have coordinated with SAWS and other departments. Several commissioners emphasized concern about oversight and recordkeeping for exempted county projects and asked staff to return with specific implementation procedures.
Staff said the UDC amendment package will be presented to the Zoning Commission on Sept. 2 for briefing and action and to City Council on Sept. 4; the packages are timed around the laws’ Sept. 1 effective date. Because this was a briefing, the commission did not take action on the UDC amendments during the Aug. 13 meeting.
