Development restrictions threatened by lawsuit The city s inner-city aeveiopineni uiumauce, wmcn neighborhoods, regardless of their zoning, which are has been hailed by Original City and Hyde Park neigh- not single-family residential or duplex. Dornooa residents as a smeia against development, is being challenged in court by an Austin developer who claims it is invalid. Lamar-Hassman Joint Venture I, which was denied a permit earlier this year to build a 22-unit condominium in South Austin, has filed suit in state district court to ask that the inner-city development ordinance be ruled invalid. The suit says the ordinance is vague, restricts development in an arbitrary manner, and was enacted without proper notice. ; w , ' CITY ATTORNEYS disagree. ;f The inner-city development ordinance was created by the City Council last January in an attempt to shore up existing zoning laws which permitted development on property even if the development was incompatible with adjacent property. Under the requirements of the ordinance, the Austin Planning Commission has to approve all development on property in the designated inner-city Seven neighborhoods in Austin received the protection of the ordinance, including Hyde Park. Hyde Park Neighborhood Association President Avis Davis said the ordinance this year protected residents from development she said would have hurt the Hyde Park area. ,' "I THINK A higher quality of development has come into the neighborhood as a result," Davis said. "It's been a tremendous benefit." The ordinance will no longer be needed next year when Austin's new zoning ordinance, which has compatibility standards, takes effect. But development begun before January is still covered by the ordinance. Assistant City Attorney Walt McCool said the ordinance has been effective. , "What we could have done is to stop development in the inner city pending the implementation of the new zoning ordinance," McCool said. "The ordinance was designed to prevent a rush in building permits for new projects that would have destroyed the value of the new zoning ordinance." Lamar-Hassman contends the inner-city develop-, ment ordinance is really a zoning ordinance, and since it was enacted without the notices normally made for zoning laws, it should be declared invalid. BUT DISTRICT Court Judge Jerry Dellana ruled last month the development ordinance is not a zoning ordinance. Donald Holcomb, an attorney repre- r senting Lamar-Hassman, said the remaining points of the lawsuit are still pending. "I think they're still good issues," Holcomb said. "It 1 was strictly a question of law. It was the court's decision to make." McCool, though, said he is confident the development ordinance will stand. "I think the law's on our side," he said. "I don't think the city acted arbitrarily. It's a good ordinance." -By Marcy Goodfltlsch and Andrew Benson
