TRCC Third Party Inspections
I’ve tweaked the following memo that I received from the Texas Association of Builders (TAB) earlier this month.

The TRCC recently placed its “County Inspection Instructions and Form” on its website in order to elicit comments.  This form, which can be viewed by clicking here, is to be utilized by the 3rd party inspector to inspect homes in areas without municipal inspections, as mandated by HB 1038 from last session.  Comments will be reviewed by the TRCC in order to determine what changes, if any, should be made before the documents become final.

Please get any comments you have to me by Friday, May 16.  I’ll get your comments to TAB for possible inclusion into their formal comments package, which they’ll turn in by May 21st.  Alternatively, you may provide your comments directly to the TRCC by e-mail to: dora.rivera@trcc.state.tx.us, or in writing to: Dora Alicia Rivera, P.O. Box 13509, Austin, Texas 78711-3509.  Again, comments are due by May 21, 2008, but please get them to me by May 16 if you would like them incorporated into TAB’s formal comments.

For your information, the 3rd party inspection rules as adopted by the Commission can be accessed by clicking here.  Thank you for your continued participation in the regulatory process and thanks to the Texas Association of Builders for looking out for our industry at the state level.

Temple Passes Masonry Ordinance
During the hearings on the masonry ordinance positive and negative view points were expressed.  Though the staff and stakeholders presented a draft that was well deliberated, it became obvious that many thought the ordinance to be too far-reaching.  The P&Z and Council both considered, but did not pass, proposed amendments that would have reduced the reach of the ordinance, and would have left it to impact only the major corridors in the city.  What they ended up passing was an ordinance that affects facade decisions for new development throughout the City with the exception of some uses, zoning districts (ag and residential), and defined locations in the city.

It remains to be seen whether the governing bodies made the right decision.  TABA will be working with our realtors, suppliers and developers over the next year to try to determine if any business people decide not to “Choose Temple” due to the need to conform to the newest City development regulation on the books.

I’m more convinced than ever of the significance of being involved in the rule-making process now that the Temple Council and Planning & Zoning Commission have heard public testimony surrounding the masonry ordinance.  Though the ordinance is not perfect, it includes a variety of sections that likely wouldn’t have been considered without stakeholder involvement.

Almost as if scripted, an example of the forethought that went into the ordinance came about at the Council meeting that followed the meeting in which the ordinance passed.  One of the sections that the stakeholders included in the ordinance was a provision that gives the City staff the ability to add to the approved materials list on an ongoing basis.  Materials on this list can be used by right on any new building facade without City approval. 

At the meeting, a zoning hearing took place in which the Council considered and approved a storage facility on one of the major corridors in Temple.  The applicant volunteered to use a product on the full exterior façade that imitates stucco in look and feel.  When asked by Council what the difference in cost would be to her overall project, the applicant testified that there would be little to no difference in the price of the product as compared to metal. 

I believe this is a good indication that the development community will adapt to the City’s call for more stringent façade standards.  I think it’ll be a positive indication of the City’s intent to be equally willing to adapt if they’ll quickly add this new product to the approved materials list.

[ Back ]