Manor City Council voted 4-1 Wednesday to deny a specific-use permit (SUP) that would have allowed a 10,000-square-foot medical office at 13400 E. U.S. Highway 290.

The permit was the subject of extended discussion about whether the city can claim sales tax revenue on the parcel and about how the use fits Manor’s long-range plans. Jeff Stenzland, a Place 5 planning and zoning commissioner speaking as a resident, told the council the parcel was annexed after 2013 and warned the city could lose sales tax revenue over the long term if the council approved the SUP. “I see this as defunding our police department,” Stenzland said, adding the change could also impact building services, a future recreation center and the planned public library.

Why it matters: Councilmembers weighed the immediate land-use suitability of medical offices against broader finance questions tied to an interlocal arrangement with Emergency Services District 12 (ESD 12). Planning and Zoning recommended denial; staff reported after additional research that Manor currently does not claim sales tax on the property because the annexation occurred after the 2013 election that governed the sales-tax split. That background informed the debate but did not produce the five affirmative votes the assistant city attorney said would be required to overturn P&Z’s negative recommendation.

Details: Michael Burrell, the city’s development services director, said the property is next to an existing storage use and will be subdivided into separate lots; he said the city is negotiating an access easement so the city and the future development can share a drive and access the nearby lift station. Bridal Baca of Advantage Construction, representing the owner, said developers had interest from smaller medical groups and had received a letter of intent but no single tenant was yet contracted. Scott Jones, the city’s economic development director, reported the city is negotiating a property-by-property interlocal agreement with ESD 12 to pursue a one-percent split on certain post-2013 annexations.

Council action: Councilwoman Wallace moved to approve the SUP with a second from Councilman Moreno. The motion failed on a 4-1 vote. Assistant City Attorney Shruti Vandivert reminded council that because Planning and Zoning had disapproved the permit, a five-vote affirmative majority would have been required to approve it.

Context and next steps: Staff said site-specific technical reviews (for example, a traffic impact analysis and any TxDOT requirements) would still be required if a developer later pursued site-plan approval. Council also noted a shortage of medical space in Manor and economic-development goals to attract more specialty clinics, but the unresolved sales-tax and land-use questions drove the vote. The council did not indicate a new date for reconsideration.

Ending: The public comments and staff presentations tied the item to broader fiscal negotiations with ESD 12 and to Manor’s plans for commercial development along U.S. 290, leaving the long-term questions about revenue-sharing and commercial strategy unresolved.