Nacogdoches City staff previews broad zoning code revisions; council raises questions on duplexes, parking and nonconforming lots

Nacogdoches City staff presented a high-level review of proposed zoning text amendments during a May 7 joint work session with the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council, seeking policy direction rather than votes.

Nathan Dietrich, a third‑party consultant working with the Planning & Development Department, led the presentation and told the group the packet was intended to explain why staff proposed each change and the research behind it. “My name is Nathan Dietrich and I have I’m a third party consultant that’s working with the Planning Development Department,” he said, opening the discussion.

Why it matters: The amendments would reorganize and clarify definitions across the city code (Chapter 118), anchor vape/smoke-device definitions in the health code (Chapter 46), add a definition and permitting framework for feather/teardrop signs in Chapter 78, and modify procedures for plan unit developments and the zoning board of adjustments. Staff said the changes are meant to reduce ambiguities that create unintended consequences across multiple provisions.

What staff proposed and the council response

- Definitions and duplexes: Staff proposed grouping dwelling‑unit types under a common “dwelling unit” entry and adding a definition for “duplex” (two attached units). Council members pressed whether duplexes in an R4 zone should automatically trigger multifamily parking and standards. Staff said the code’s zoning classification governs parking: if a parcel qualifies as multifamily (more than three units), multifamily standards apply; otherwise a single duplex could be treated differently. City Attorney Jerry Baker advised council that proposed language could make multifamily parking requirements clear by zone. A council member urged more time and deeper workshops for family- and short‑term‑rental issues.

- Plan unit developments (PUDs): Staff proposed streamlining PUD procedures, removing redundant steps and considering a minimum acreage threshold (staff gave three acres as an example used elsewhere). The stated intent is to speed developer review while preserving council oversight; some councilmembers warned against transferring decision authority without clear guardrails.

- Nonconformity and lot‑size relief: Staff outlined proposed changes to allow modest, reasonable improvements (porches, decks, sheds) on nonconforming lots without triggering full loss of status, and asked whether dimensional variances in small percentages could be permitted administratively to address infill challenges. Staff’s GIS analysis showed roughly 3,000 parcels—about 19% of city parcels—do not meet current minimum lot‑size requirements, prompting discussion of grandfathering or staff-level relief for small changes.

- Board of Adjustment and notice timelines: Staff recommended procedural cleanups and aligning notice periods with state law, proposing a 15‑day public notice for decision bodies where appropriate and requiring pre‑application conferences for variances and special exceptions.

- Signs and vape/smoke retailers: Staff proposed a consolidated definition for retail tobacco/vape/smoke stores, moving the technical definition to Chapter 46 and requiring a special use permit in commercial areas while allowing them by right in industrial zones. Staff also proposed a straight‑line distancing requirement from churches, schools, parks, hospitals and other tobacco/vape retailers to limit proliferation near sensitive sites.

Council concerns and next steps

Council members generally supported clarifying language but repeatedly cautioned against unintended shifts in approval authority and urged additional workshops to resolve contentious or complex points such as family definitions, duplexes in R4 zones, parking standards, and the treatment of thousands of nonconforming parcels. City Manager Rick (staff identified earlier in the packet) characterized the package’s genesis as language cleanup but acknowledged it had grown into a larger set of policy choices. “The real genesis for this was just clean up on language—that’s what started it,” Rick said.

Staff will return with follow‑up workshops, written Q&A or an anonymized FAQ to avoid Open Meetings Act pitfalls, and refined redlines that reflect the council’s guidance. No formal actions or votes were taken at the May 7 session.