There was only one zoning case on the agenda at the last Council meeting: to back zone a parcel from Single Family to Agricultural. I said at the time, as did several others, it was a very unusual case.
 
Ray Leszcynski, Dallas Morning News reporter, posted on the case at the DMN Garland Blog the day after and there was a similar brief story in the paper a few days later.
 

From the DMN Garland Blog:

Garland council unanimously grants 'downzoning' for wooded plat

2:38 PM Wed, May 05, 2010
Ray Leszcynski/Reporter
 
Garland, an inner-ring city rapidly approaching buildout, on Tuesday rezoned nearly 10 acres near Campbell and Jupiter roads as agricultural.
 
Property owner Craig Hastings plans to put in an orchard, but otherwise retain the trees, creek, pond and wildlife (including beavers and coyotes) that exist in the undeveloped, natural state of the property. An orchard is an agricultural use of the property that would eventually provide Hastings a tax break.
 
The "reverse zoning" was granted unanimously after testimony that the land was mostly undevelopable for the single-family zoning that was in place. Hastings' case was also bolstered by neighbors who testified that they enjoy the property in its natural state and that Hastings has kept it cleaner than the previous owner.
 
"The thing that tips the balance is what he's done with the property," said Rick Williams, who represents District 7 where the property is located. "He ridded the property of two aging, rat-infested homes at his own expense, plans to build a 4,500 square foot home and he has maintained both the property and the creek. If agricultural zoning would give him a little bit of an edge, I move to change the zoning." Mayor Pro Tem Laura Cox quickly seconded the motion.
 
The move was against the advice of staff and the city's Plan Commission. They noted that Hastings' plan for an orchard was permitted under the single-family zoning that was in place.
 
"The staff made absolutely the correct recommendation here. We should not be back-zoning," said Council member Doug Athas. "But it's a 50-50 tie and my perspective is that all ties go to the applicant."
 
The land was originally donated from the developers of the Camelot addition to the Richardson school district, which operates Big Springs Elementary and a nature center on the other side of Campbell Road.
 
UPDATE THURSDAY: I forgot yesterday to link the CGTV tape of this discussion. It's 68-minutes, so it's broken into two parts (here and here). Long, yes, but for a zoning geek like myself, this is a unique and fascinating case. Having sat through the Garland council meeting where they spent an hour discussing QuikTrip roofs, I'll readily attest that this discussion is far more invigorating.
 

 
It's a bit hard to describe why this particular case was so different, but, like Mr Leszcynski also noticed, it was. In twelve years of reviewing Garland zoning cases, and sitting in council meetings from coast to coast over the past twenty-some years, it was a first.
 
Understand that up-zoning means changing the zoning on a particular parcel to a more intensive use (say, residential to commercial to industrial). That usually means the land also becomes more valuable but if the demand isn't there, land can sit for many years unused. Of course, many other conditions control how land is eventually zoned. But that was part of the interest here: going backwards. You don't see that often because it usually means devaluing the land, which most landowners would hate.
 
And that was what the applicant in this case wanted to do. Many people know that an agricultural exemption from the appraisal district means lower taxes. However, there is no literal connection between a tax exemption and a zoning category even if both are called by the same name (Agricultural). Thus the applicant mentioned using the land for agricultural uses and, someday, he might be granted an ag exemption. He could do that with any zoning category. There's no connection. He also said that Agricultural zoning might enable him to get a lower appraisal. Land nearby, also zoned Agricultural and just to the north of his, is appraised much lower and has about the same realistic use and value. The new zoning may (or may not) get an appraisal district appraiser's attention enough that he would change the property district's appraisal, but, in any case, the applicant should be able to point to that land and say "comparable."
 
None of that is a valid reason for Garland to change the zoning, which is why I believe the staff and Plan Commission recommended against it. There was no by-the-books justification for going backwards.
 
Here's where it gets interesting. Councils can look beyond land use and other considerations and, hopefully, sometimes deliver a more equitable decision. In this case, the applicant owned three adjacent lots. Two had until recently had houses on them. Both of those lots are zoned Agricultural. The lot he wanted to change, little more than an extensive drainage area and ditches, was for the most part unsuitable for development but is was zoned Single Family. To summarize: two single-family homes were zoned Agricultural and a rural, agricultural piece was zoned Single Family, exactly backwards of what one would expect. Any council would be justified continuing the existing zoning if the agricultural use would be inappropriate to the area or if future development called for leaving the existing zoning in place. Changing the zoning to reflect the actual low-intensity uses associated with a drainage area was equally valid.
 
As Mr Leszcynski accurately quotes me, such ties should go to the applicant. Government can theorize and procedurally categorize what-ifs and what-should-bes but government doesn't own the land. If the applicant has as much reason for the change as government has to not change it, I'll go with the applicant.
 
In truth, I don't remember over those many years ever hearing a case that came down so close to an even split in the interests. As Mr Leszcynski and others sensed, it was a very unusual case.