Dormant PDD Policy – Referral to P&Z for Ordinance Drafting | 4/17/2025 Council Meeting

[Paul Roberts]

Colleagues,

In response to Agenda Item 15, I’ve prepared a draft policy framework that outlines how we might evaluate and manage dormant Planned Development Districts (PDDs) moving forward. While not intended for direct adoption by Council at this time, the framework reflects our current zoning authority and long-range planning objectives. It is offered as a structured guide to assist P&Z in drafting a standalone ordinance.

Summary of Intent:

• Over the years, the City has approved numerous PDDs, some of which have seen no meaningful activity in many years.
• This stagnation presents challenges for infrastructure planning, legal defensibility, and consistency with our FLUM and Comprehensive Plan.
• Our current zoning ordinance already gives the City authority to initiate rezoning after two years of inactivity (see Sections 10.40 and 10.70).
• However, we lack a policy-level tool to systematize how and when to use that authority.
• The draft framework creates clear criteria for dormancy, exempts active development agreements, and avoids affording developers additional time beyond what statute or ordinance already allows.

Referral Request to Planning & Zoning Commission:

I recommend that Council refer this matter to P&Z with two directives:

1. Draft a standalone ordinance that codifies the attached framework into enforceable law.
2. Review the dormant PDD inventory and provide recommendations to Council on any properties they believe should be prioritized for rezoning or additional scrutiny.

Additional Notes:

• This approach maintains Council’s leadership role while following proper statutory process for amendments to Chapter 14.
• The draft policy is not being adopted by Council — it is offered as a working guide to support P&Z in ordinance development.
• All relevant materials are below, including the policy framework, staff-prepared list of dormant PDDs, and a location map.

Feedback is welcome in advance of the meeting. I will also walk through this on the dais during Item 15.

— Paul

---

​

Draft Policy Framework

Policy for the Evaluation and Management of Dormant Planned Development Districts (PDDs)

City of Lago Vista, Texas
Dated: April 17, 2025
Submitted By: Councilor Paul Roberts

---

​

I. Purpose and Intent

This policy establishes a consistent and legally defensible process for identifying, evaluating, and managing Planned Development Districts (PDDs) that have remained inactive for extended periods. The intent is to ensure alignment with the City’s long-range planning goals, infrastructure capacity, and land use policies while preserving transparency and respecting vested rights.

---

​

II. Definition of Dormant PDD

A Planned Development District (PDD) shall be considered "dormant" if:

1. No Detail Plan has been submitted within two years of Concept Plan approval, in accordance with Section 10.40 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. No construction permit has been issued or construction commenced within a period sufficient to support the conclusion that there are no current plans to develop the property, as referenced in Section 10.70 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Exceptions apply as detailed in Section V of this policy.

---

​

III. Evaluation Criteria

The City shall annually review approved PDDs using the following criteria:

• Time since last material development activity (platting, permitting, construction)
• Whether infrastructure agreements or utilities have been extended
• Consistency with current Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Comprehensive Plan
• Impact on surrounding properties and long-range growth priorities
• Legal access and feasibility of site development

---

​

IV. Procedure for Designation and Review

1. Identification – Staff shall maintain and annually update a list of potentially dormant PDDs.
2. Preliminary Review – The list shall be submitted to the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) for review and comment.
3. Owner Notification – Property owners of identified dormant PDDs shall be formally notified and provided an opportunity to present development intentions or evidence of compliance.
4. Council Action – Upon P&Z recommendation, the City Council may initiate rezoning proceedings in accordance with Chapter 14.
5. Public Hearing – All rezoning actions shall comply with applicable notice and hearing requirements under Chapter 14, including opportunity for public input.

---

​

V. Exceptions for Development Agreements

Properties subject to an active, duly executed development agreement approved by the City Council shall be evaluated under the timelines and benchmarks established within that agreement. Where such agreements allow for phased development or extended periods to initiate construction, those terms shall supersede the standard two-year dormancy thresholds.

No PDD shall be classified as dormant or scheduled for rezoning so long as the property owner remains in material compliance with an applicable development agreement.

---

​

VI. Legal Protections and Limitations

This policy shall be implemented in a manner consistent with:

• Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code (Vested Rights)
• Existing provisions of the Lago Vista Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance
• The Texas and U.S. Constitutions with respect to takings and due process

---

​

VII. Implementation and Future Ordinance Amendments

This policy shall serve as guidance for evaluating dormant entitlements. If codification or amendment to Chapter 14 (Zoning Ordinance) or the Subdivision Ordinance is required, Council shall seek a formal recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission prior to adoption, as required by statute.

---

​

VIII. Effective Date

This policy becomes effective upon approval by the City Council. No grace periods or extensions shall be inferred or granted beyond those provided by ordinance or statute.

 

[Paul Roberts]

This is my draft referral to P&Z from Council:

City of Lago Vista, Texas​

COUNCIL REFERRAL TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION​

Date of Council Action: April 17, 2025
Submitted by: Councilor Paul Roberts

Referral Summary:​

The City Council refers the matter of potentially dormant Planned Development Districts (PDDs) to the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) for formal review and recommendations, based on the draft policy framework dated April 17, 2025.

Scope of Referral and Direction to P&Z:​

1. Draft Standalone Ordinance

P&Z is requested to prepare a standalone ordinance that codifies the Dormant PDD evaluation and management framework. The ordinance should:

- Align with current authority in Chapter 14 of the Lago Vista Zoning Ordinance

- Incorporate the two-year inactivity triggers referenced in Sections 10.40 (Concept Plan) and 10.70 (Detail Plan)

- Acknowledge valid, active development agreements as overriding timelines

- Avoid granting any new grace periods beyond those provided by ordinance or state law

- Ensure compatibility with Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code (Vested Rights) and other legal standards


2. Evaluate Existing PDDs for Potential Council Action

P&Z is also requested to review the list of dormant or partially dormant PDDs as compiled by staff and:

- Identify any properties they recommend for immediate Council consideration

- Provide any supplemental findings related to long-term inactivity, infrastructure limitations, or land use inconsistencies

Attachments to be Provided by Staff:​

- Draft Policy Framework (April 17, 2025)

- Dormant PDD Inventory List

- Dormant PDD Location Map

Implementation Note:​

Any amendment to Chapter 14 (Zoning Ordinance) must receive a formal recommendation from P&Z prior to Council adoption, consistent with the Texas Local Government Code and city charter.

Council requests that P&Z prioritize this item and provide a recommendation at its earliest convenience.

 

[Adam Benefield]

Thank you sir.

 

[Shane Saum]

Colleagues,

In response to Agenda Item 15, I’ve prepared a draft policy framework that outlines how we might evaluate and manage dormant Planned Development Districts (PDDs) moving forward. While not intended for direct adoption by Council at this time, the framework reflects our current zoning authority and long-range planning objectives. It is offered as a structured guide to assist P&Z in drafting a standalone ordinance.

Summary of Intent:

• Over the years, the City has approved numerous PDDs, some of which have seen no meaningful activity in many years.
• This stagnation presents challenges for infrastructure planning, legal defensibility, and consistency with our FLUM and Comprehensive Plan.
• Our current zoning ordinance already gives the City authority to initiate rezoning after two years of inactivity (see Sections 10.40 and 10.70).
• However, we lack a policy-level tool to systematize how and when to use that authority.
• The draft framework creates clear criteria for dormancy, exempts active development agreements, and avoids affording developers additional time beyond what statute or ordinance already allows.

Referral Request to Planning & Zoning Commission:

I recommend that Council refer this matter to P&Z with two directives:

1. Draft a standalone ordinance that codifies the attached framework into enforceable law.
2. Review the dormant PDD inventory and provide recommendations to Council on any properties they believe should be prioritized for rezoning or additional scrutiny.

Additional Notes:

• This approach maintains Council’s leadership role while following proper statutory process for amendments to Chapter 14.
• The draft policy is not being adopted by Council — it is offered as a working guide to support P&Z in ordinance development.
• All relevant materials are below, including the policy framework, staff-prepared list of dormant PDDs, and a location map.

Feedback is welcome in advance of the meeting. I will also walk through this on the dais during Item 15.

— Paul

​

---

Draft Policy Framework

Policy for the Evaluation and Management of Dormant Planned Development Districts (PDDs)

City of Lago Vista, Texas
Dated: April 17, 2025
Submitted By: Councilor Paul Roberts

​

---

I. Purpose and Intent

This policy establishes a consistent and legally defensible process for identifying, evaluating, and managing Planned Development Districts (PDDs) that have remained inactive for extended periods. The intent is to ensure alignment with the City’s long-range planning goals, infrastructure capacity, and land use policies while preserving transparency and respecting vested rights.

​

---

II. Definition of Dormant PDD

A Planned Development District (PDD) shall be considered "dormant" if:

1. No Detail Plan has been submitted within two years of Concept Plan approval, in accordance with Section 10.40 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. No construction permit has been issued or construction commenced within a period sufficient to support the conclusion that there are no current plans to develop the property, as referenced in Section 10.70 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Exceptions apply as detailed in Section V of this policy.

​

---

III. Evaluation Criteria

The City shall annually review approved PDDs using the following criteria:

• Time since last material development activity (platting, permitting, construction)
• Whether infrastructure agreements or utilities have been extended
• Consistency with current Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Comprehensive Plan
• Impact on surrounding properties and long-range growth priorities
• Legal access and feasibility of site development

​

---

IV. Procedure for Designation and Review

1. Identification – Staff shall maintain and annually update a list of potentially dormant PDDs.
2. Preliminary Review – The list shall be submitted to the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) for review and comment.
3. Owner Notification – Property owners of identified dormant PDDs shall be formally notified and provided an opportunity to present development intentions or evidence of compliance.
4. Council Action – Upon P&Z recommendation, the City Council may initiate rezoning proceedings in accordance with Chapter 14.
5. Public Hearing – All rezoning actions shall comply with applicable notice and hearing requirements under Chapter 14, including opportunity for public input.

​

---

V. Exceptions for Development Agreements

Properties subject to an active, duly executed development agreement approved by the City Council shall be evaluated under the timelines and benchmarks established within that agreement. Where such agreements allow for phased development or extended periods to initiate construction, those terms shall supersede the standard two-year dormancy thresholds.

No PDD shall be classified as dormant or scheduled for rezoning so long as the property owner remains in material compliance with an applicable development agreement.

​

---

VI. Legal Protections and Limitations

This policy shall be implemented in a manner consistent with:

• Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code (Vested Rights)
• Existing provisions of the Lago Vista Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance
• The Texas and U.S. Constitutions with respect to takings and due process

​

---

VII. Implementation and Future Ordinance Amendments

This policy shall serve as guidance for evaluating dormant entitlements. If codification or amendment to Chapter 14 (Zoning Ordinance) or the Subdivision Ordinance is required, Council shall seek a formal recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission prior to adoption, as required by statute.

​

---

VIII. Effective Date

This policy becomes effective upon approval by the City Council. No grace periods or extensions shall be inferred or granted beyond those provided by ordinance or statute.

Councilman Roberts,

Thank you for your work putting this framework together. I appreciate the intention to bring structure to how we evaluate dormant PDDs, especially with respect to infrastructure planning and alignment with our FLUM. I also understand we need to be mindful of growth with our limited water infrastructure capacity. That said, I’d like to offer a few thoughts and ask some questions that I hope can guide a broader discussion before we move this forward.

As a matter of principle, I have some concern about what this policy may signal regarding private property rights. From a conservative standpoint, one of our core values is limiting government interference in private decisions — especially when it comes to land use and property ownership. If a citizen or investor lawfully obtained a PDD under the City’s zoning code, I question whether it’s appropriate for the City to unilaterally revoke that designation simply because the property hasn’t developed within a preferred timeframe.

Some questions I’d like to raise:
- What exactly constitutes “dormancy,” and how has that definition held up legally in previously challenged cases by a property owner? For example, is holding land for long-term future use — perhaps even with site plans or design intentions not yet submitted — inherently a problem?
- Have other cities successfully implemented similar policies without exposing themselves to legal risk or undermining property owner trust?
- Does the Comprehensive Plan clearly call for this kind of action, or is this a policy preference beyond what the plan envisions?
- If we are prioritizing alignment with FLUM or current planning goals, could we be setting a precedent that other zoning designations might also be stripped or changed based on inactivity or misalignment with future plans?

To be clear, I understand the desire to avoid speculative PDDs that never materialize or become inconsistent with current needs. But I’d encourage us to tread carefully when considering policy tools that may be perceived as punitive or overly aggressive toward property owners who played by the rules when their PDDs were approved. What if a PDD has invested $10k and held multiple planning meetings, how would it look if we pushed to revoke their PDD while they hold planning meetings?

Perhaps instead of defaulting to revocation, we could explore other strategies — such as sunset clauses on future PDDs, tiered development benchmarks, or even voluntary relinquishment incentives — that strike a better balance between planning certainty and private rights.

Looking forward to discussing further on the dais and hearing the Commission’s input as well.

Thank you

 

[Paul Prince]

Thank you for this Mr. Roberts.
The problem you are addressing here is the very real dilemma the city has of needing to plan for future growth by expanding our water, sewer, and roads. Those of us who have been on council for some time recognize that some of these large PDDs are a significant portion of the future demand. We need to know with reasonable certainty the time frame in which we need to have infrastructure ready for these developments and how big they will be over time. We want to avoid infrastructure investment being too early (spending our citizens dollars ahead of the real need) or too late (overwhelming the available resources).

The only thing that I see here we may need to clarify is in Section III "Evaluation Criteria". I think bullets 3 and beyond may be considerations for any possible rezoning actions if/after a dormancy of the existing PDD has been determined. Bullets 1 and 2 in that section would apply to determining dormancy.

Paul (Prince)

 

[Paul Roberts]

Councilman Roberts,

Thank you for your work putting this framework together. I appreciate the intention to bring structure to how we evaluate dormant PDDs, especially with respect to infrastructure planning and alignment with our FLUM. I also understand we need to be mindful of growth with our limited water infrastructure capacity. That said, I’d like to offer a few thoughts and ask some questions that I hope can guide a broader discussion before we move this forward.

As a matter of principle, I have some concern about what this policy may signal regarding private property rights. From a conservative standpoint, one of our core values is limiting government interference in private decisions — especially when it comes to land use and property ownership. If a citizen or investor lawfully obtained a PDD under the City’s zoning code, I question whether it’s appropriate for the City to unilaterally revoke that designation simply because the property hasn’t developed within a preferred timeframe.

Some questions I’d like to raise:
- What exactly constitutes “dormancy,” and how has that definition held up legally in previously challenged cases by a property owner? For example, is holding land for long-term future use — perhaps even with site plans or design intentions not yet submitted — inherently a problem?
- Have other cities successfully implemented similar policies without exposing themselves to legal risk or undermining property owner trust?
- Does the Comprehensive Plan clearly call for this kind of action, or is this a policy preference beyond what the plan envisions?
- If we are prioritizing alignment with FLUM or current planning goals, could we be setting a precedent that other zoning designations might also be stripped or changed based on inactivity or misalignment with future plans?

To be clear, I understand the desire to avoid speculative PDDs that never materialize or become inconsistent with current needs. But I’d encourage us to tread carefully when considering policy tools that may be perceived as punitive or overly aggressive toward property owners who played by the rules when their PDDs were approved. What if a PDD has invested $10k and held multiple planning meetings, how would it look if we pushed to revoke their PDD while they hold planning meetings?

Perhaps instead of defaulting to revocation, we could explore other strategies — such as sunset clauses on future PDDs, tiered development benchmarks, or even voluntary relinquishment incentives — that strike a better balance between planning certainty and private rights.

Looking forward to discussing further on the dais and hearing the Commission’s input as well.

Thank you

Councilman Saum,

Thank you for taking the time to review the draft framework and for offering a balanced, values-oriented perspective. I appreciate your focus on protecting private property rights and approaching land use policy with prudence and restraint — especially when dealing with entitlements lawfully obtained under previous codes.

Let me address your core concerns and questions directly:

---

​

What Constitutes “Dormancy” and Legal Risk?

The proposed definition of dormancy in the framework relies solely on existing authority already codified in our Zoning Ordinance — specifically Sections 10.40 and 10.70, which empower P&Z or Council to initiate rezoning proceedings after two years of inactivity, such as:

• No detail plan submitted within 2 years of concept plan approval (Sec. 10.40)
• No permit issued or construction begun within a reasonable time (Sec. 10.70)

We are not creating new standards — rather, the policy simply establishes a transparent and consistent process by which Council may choose to act on that existing authority. Importantly, this does not revoke zoning automatically, nor does it prevent any property owner from participating in a public hearing or presenting valid plans or investments.

---

​

How Have Other Cities Handled This?

Yes, several cities in Texas and across the U.S. have implemented similar dormancy review mechanisms — particularly those in growth corridors managing long-range infrastructure. Common elements include:

• Sunset provisions on unused zoning
• Benchmark-based development agreements
• Voluntary relinquishment or reversion programs

In almost all cases, the city’s defense rests on (a) providing due process, and (b) acting through formal rezoning with public hearings, not automatic revocation. Our proposed framework does both.

---

​

Does the Comprehensive Plan Support This Direction?

Yes, the draft 2025 Comprehensive Plan provides clear support for this type of policy tool. Specifically:

• Page 27 outlines Guiding Principles, including “Ensure cost-effective infrastructure” and “Promote incremental and sustainable growth.”
• Page 28–30 highlights the use of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and zoning changes as tools to align development with evolving citywide priorities.
• Page 102+ (Chapter 5: Future Land Use Goals) specifically states that Lago Vista will “manage the direction of growth and development through a thoughtfully planned land use pattern.”
  This includes actions related to zoning consistency and infrastructure capacity.

So yes — the plan envisions Council taking proactive steps to maintain land use alignment and infrastructure balance.

---

​

Does This Set a Broader Precedent for Other Zoning Strips?

Not unless Council chooses to go that direction.

This framework is narrowly tailored to PDDs, which are negotiated, site-specific districts that typically include conditions like phasing, design controls, or infrastructure triggers. We are not applying this to by-right zoning (e.g., R-1, R-2) or properties held passively. If we ever proposed that, it would need its own policy, legal review, and public debate.

---

​

Alternative or Complementary Ideas

Your suggestions — like sunset clauses on new PDDs, development benchmarks, or incentives to voluntarily revert — are absolutely worth exploring. In fact, I believe they could be added as future enhancements to this framework, either through:

• Provisions in future PDD agreements, or
• A “phased dormancy” model for future entitlements (e.g., 3-year benchmarks post-approval).

But today’s framework is limited to evaluating already-approved PDDs, using existing ordinance triggers. It does not create new penalties, nor does it close the door on property owners pursuing development.

---

​

Final Thoughts

This isn't about punishment — it's about reasserting planning intent on entitlements that may be decades old and are no longer aligned with available infrastructure or community needs. The framework simply ensures we’re making those calls deliberately, with public transparency and legal grounding.

Your caution is well taken, and I support a deliberative and balanced approach as we proceed.

Looking forward to further discussion on the dais.

— Paul