Hager ltr. re allegationsFEB 19 2003 17:34 FR NICHOL% JRCK~ON DILLR4 U~D ~Mi~ I~ ~¢~UD4/DU~ ~.D~/D4
E-mail: rha~tr~njdh$.~om
NICHOLS, JACKSON, DILLARD, HAGER & SMITH, L.L.E
Attorneys & Coun~elot~ at Law
1800 Lincoln Plaza
500 North Akard
Dallas, Texas 75201
('2t4) 965-9900
Fax (214) 965-0010
E-mail NJDH~ @N.rDHS.com
February 19, 2003
Mr. James B, Harris
Thoropson & Knight, L.L.P.
1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3300
Dallas, Texas 75201
Via Facsimile 214-969-1751
and U.S. First Class Ma!!
RE: Sherlock Small Business Park and Storage Center zoning application
Dear Mr. Harris:
Please be advised that we are in receipt of your letter dated February 10, 2003 concerning
your client Houghton Capital.
It appears that Houghton Capital has made an application for a change in zoning to obtain
a special use permit for a small business park and self-storage center at the comer of State
Highway 121 and Northpoint Drive within the City of Coppell. After receiving your letter of
February 10, 2003, we have undertaken to make comprehensive investigation of the allegations
set forth therein. In doing so, we have talked to members of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, City Manager, and the Planning staff. In addition, we have talked to surrounding
property owners concerning the proposed special use permit. We cannot find any support in fact
or by perception that any opposition was solicited by members of the Planning and Zoning staff
for the City of Coppell. We categorically deny that there was any promise of "favorable
treatment" in exchange for opposing the applications of your clients. We have received
assurance from surrounding property owners that they have not been solicited. If any of those
property owners hold opposition to the proposed development, that opinion is that that of the
property owner and not solicited or fomented by members of the Planning staff.
We will respond to the three (3) specific allegations set forth in your letter. Your first
allegation states that "the city continues to allow the planning director to be directly involved in
this zoning case." This matter was assigned to Andrea Roy, who is an Associate Planner in the
Coppell Planning Department. This is her case and she will make the presentation on Thursday,
February 20, 2003 at the scheduled meeting. Although the Planning Director is her direct
supervisor, this case has been handled exclusively by her. We have had assurances from your
clients in conversations with the City Manager, that she has acted in a professional and unbiased
Mr, James B. Harris
February 19, 2005
Page :l
manner and has not in anyway attempted to improperly influence or treat this application
different from similar cases. There is no indication that the Planning Director has done anything
other than supervise his personnel in this matter and we specifically do not have any evidence
which would support the allegation that the "Planning Director has improperly influenced a
member of his staff."
Secondly, the specific allegation stated, "no meaningful effort has been made yet to
ensure that the plan commission will not be influenced in any ~ay by the planning director's
actions." We find this a miraculous assertion in the face of the fact that your client has either
met or contacted, individually, the Harming and Zoning Commissioners outside the public
hearing process. This contact with commissioners outside the planning process is, in my
opinion, inappropriate. The commission should not receive any information outside the public
hearing process, basic agenda materials or background information. Attempts by your client to
individually "lobby" members of the Planning and Zoning Commission seriously compromise
the public hearing process. We have always discouraged such contacts by applicants with
members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. We have likewise discouraged members of
the Planning and Zoning Commission from engaging in such contacts with applicants. There is
also not any information which would indicate that the Planning Director has "passed on any
information" to the Commission which would negatively influence your client. We would
acknowledge that the Planning Director indicated to members of the Commission that meeting
with the applicant was not proper. This was done with the assistance of legal counsel and if
anything, to ensure that the public has full information and that the Planning Commission does
not attempt to be polled or make a decision outside a public and open meeting. We feel that your
client has facilitated criticism against itself by making these contacts and leaving information
with individual commission members. Thus, we cannot conclude that the Planning Director or
any member of the Planning Department has improperly influenced or interfered with the
Commissions' decision-making ability. If anything, your client has had equal or better access to
the Commission than the Planning staff.
Lastly, you indicated that "nothing has been done to 'rehabilitate' the applicant to remove
the tarnish painted improperly by the planning director." Again, we would reiterate that there
was not any improper influence by the Planning Director. While your client's perception of the
Planning Director's comments during the workshop session of the December Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting, may have left him or her that there was a "tarnished' imagine of
the applicant, we have long encouraged the Coppell Planning and Zoning Commission, as well
as our other clients, not to conduct individual meetings with applicants. Therefore, as previously
indicated, there is not any reason to "rehabilitate" the applicant.
Based on the investigation that we have conducted, along with our knowledge of the
operation of the Planning and Zoning Department as well as the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Coppell, we find any actions alleged by your client to be improper are
unfounded and are not the policy of the City of Coppell. Moreover, we would insist that the
$4098
Mr. James B. Harris
February 19, 2003
Page 3
policy of the City is not to have applicants attempt to provide information outside of the Planning
process. Your client has received and gone through the Development Review Committee as well
as appeared before the Planning and Zoning Commission and has had the opportunity to present
the facts and circumstances concerning the proposed development and special use permit. The
actions of your client in attempting to meet with members of the Planning and Zoning
Commission fall outside the City's policies.
Based on our investigation, we conclude that if any actions have taken place which are
peculiar to your particular client, they have done so as a result of your client attempting to meet
with members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and not process its special use permit
through the normal channels by dealing with Planning Department of the City of Coppell. We
hope that this letter serves as an appropriate response to the allegations contained in the February
I0, 2003 letter. We look forward to your clients' presentation on the 20th of February, 2003,
concerning this zoning application.
Thank you for your attention in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact us at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
NICHOLS, JACKSON, DILLARD,
REH/cdb
Mr, Jim Witt, City Manager (Via Facsimile 972-304-7063)
Mr. Gary S ieb, Director of Planning (Via Facsimile 972-304-7092)
Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission (Via staff)
NICHOLS, JACKSON, D!! .1 .ARD, HAGER & SMITH, L.L.E
54098