Drones are Ready. Red Tape Is Also

Source: City of Richardson.

On January 7, 2025, the Richardson City Plan Commission (CPC) approved, but only with a special permit, ZF 24-33, "a City-initiated PD Amendment to the Collins/Arapaho TOD and Innovation District Form Based Code Planned Development to allow a Drone Operations and Maintenance Center as a permitted use in the Employment Sub-District."

Do you even know what a Drone Operations and Maintenance Center is? I didn't. And, judging by the discussion by the CPC members, neither did they. I have three comments.

---

1. Existing zoning prohibits drone infrastructure in the Innovation District even though the district is supposed to be the "Premier Tech Hub in Texas" and an "area for emerging and scaling companies" with a "focus on research and development and innovation." The staff report says, "The use of drones for deliveries and services has grown, both nationwide and in the North Texas area, over the past few years and is expected to grow with increases in e-commerce as an alternative to traditional retail storefronts. Therefore, it may be useful to provide for regulations in the City of Richardson for such uses."

   Fair enough. I find it interesting that this is the first City-initiated rezoning exercise since the new Comprehensive Plan was adopted last year. And even the CPC, a City-appointed body, wants to slap the "special use" restriction on this innovative use. It doesn't bode well for other changes that the new Comprehensive Plan supposedly supports that will require changes to the City's zoning ordinances.

2. Maybe part of the problem is the confusion over the question, just what is a "Drone Operations and Maintenance Center" in the first place? Deliberations by CPC and City Staff were not a shining example of expertise in how such questions are researched and answered at City Hall. Rather than try to summarize the discussion by CPC myself, I'll turn to Justin Neth's most excellent reporting of the meeting. (Neth has a new Substack, Richardson Review, for his reports of CPC and City Council meetings that I urge you to subscribe to, or at least bookmark. It's worth regular reading.)

   Commissioner Poynter moves to recommend approval of the request. She amends the request to require that the word "operations" be clarified. Commissioner Beach seconds the motion. Chair Marsh asks what the requested clarification on the word would be. ACM Goff states that the clarification could be "without direct delivery service". (This is so confusing now.) Commissioner Poynter states that operating a drone isn't the same as delivering with a drone. (What are we even talking about.) Commissioner Poynter amends her motion to recommend approval of the request with the additions of maintenance and support of drone operations in the wording. (I have no idea what that means.) This motion doesn"t receive a second. (ACM Goff now has his head in his hands.) Chair Marsh now asks for a vote on the first motion. (I"m still not sure that was a proper motion.) Chaos ensues.

   Commissioners Purdy, Beach, and Poynter are the only votes in favor of approving the now completely confused motion. (Mind you, Commissioners Poynter and Purdy are alternates tonight and aren"t supposed to vote on the same items. But where oh where will the drones go?!?) Everyone else is opposed and we now have eight commissioners voting on the item. They count the votes again and exclude Commissioner Purdy's vote. What. A. Failure.

   Chair Marsh suggests that the motion failed because it provided no direction or clarity to staff. Chair Marsh expresses his clear opposition to any motion that approves the use by right. The CPC is now frozen with confusion. ACM Goff attempts to summarize the comments. He states that the questions, based on the discussion, seem to be whether to allow delivery operations and whether to require a special permit. He suggests amending the definition to prohibit any direct delivery of goods. Commissioner Keller asks why that even matters. They could still fly out to deliver from existing stores. He doesn"t understand what that would change. Commissioner Keller states that this request is far too vague. Every commissioner seems to have a different understanding and interpretation of the wording. Commissioner Roberts agrees. Chair Marsh asks ACM Goff why the city is requesting this. ACM Goff answers that one operator is considering establishing this use. Vice-Chair Southard suggests a continuance. Commissioner Roberts suggests requiring a special permit citywide, which has been done with other uses. ACM Goff indicates that they would have to change the zoning for every existing PD.

   Chair Marsh asks if any drones operate with something other than a battery. ACM Goff states that this is what the FAA regulates. Commissioner Beach suggests taking operations out altogether and just establishing a maintenance use. (This horse is dead"and beaten.)

   Commissioner Roberts moves to recommend approval with the amended condition of requiring a special permit for the use. Commissioner Keller seconds the motion. The CPC passes this motion 4-3 with Commissioners Southard, Roberts, Keller, and Poynter in favor and Commissioners Marsh, Beach, and Bohnsack opposed. This is scheduled for a Jan. 27th Council hearing. Meeting adjourned.

   Source: Justin Neth— Richardson Review.

   Whew! Now you know why I didn't try to summarize this myself. My head might have exploded. I can't wait until February 10, 2025, when the City Council, led by Mayor Bob Dubey, takes a whack at this.

3. The zoning process in the City of Richardson is broken. The written staff report for this case seems to me to be adequate, but staff's ability to answer CPC's basic questions fell short. The meeting went off the rails, but that's not all on Staff. The CPC itself bears most of the blame. It's a body made up of volunteers with little expertise in the area they are asked to regulate. God bless them, but they look overwhelmed sometimes by the technical challenge of what we ask them to do.

   Which brings me to the subject of how they are appointed. All we know is that they are chosen by the City Council in secret meetings. There is no record of the vetting done on these volunteers chosen to serve on a board or commission. There is no record of which Councilmembers championed which individual members. There is a lack of individual accountability. This is a bad way to populate boards and commissions. It allows Councilmembers to hide their own failures in getting the best and brightest to serve on our boards and commissions. There is a better way. It's time we adopt reforms.

---

"Premier Tech Hub's hopes,
Innovation clipped by rules,
Tangled in red tape."
—h/t ChatGPT

---

Updated with a new date for the hearing of this case before the City Council.