Bellmead planning panel votes to deny proposed rewrite of zoning code

Bellmead Planning and Zoning Commission members voted Jan. 21, 2025, to deny forwarding a proposed amendment to Appendix A of the city's zoning ordinance to city council, effectively pausing a rewrite that would eliminate the code's cumulative-use structure.

The commission's vote followed renewed discussion of an item first heard May 21, 2024, and a six-month tabling. The item would have altered the ordinance's decades-old approach that allows higher-intensity uses (for example, industrial) to permit lower-intensity uses (such as single-family homes) on the same parcel.

Why it matters: The proposed change was intended to keep residential, business and industrial uses in their respective districts so homeowners and business investors would have clearer protections. Proponents said the current structure dates to the 1960s and does not match contemporary development practice; opponents at the May public hearing said the rewrite could hurt property owners and were strongly opposed in person.

Planning staff summarized the item and recalled outreach since May. A staff member told the commission that he had taken "over 300 phone calls from citizens" and that most callers supported the change once it was explained. The staff member said, "I spent all day every day on the phone, and I made an effort to return every one of those phone calls," and that many callers understood the proposal after explanation.

Commission discussion cited the May hearing'where roughly 50 people attended and largely opposed the change'and local notice costs. The staff member said notices had been mailed to 3,766 Bellmead property owners for the prior effort and estimated the mailing cost at roughly $3,000 to $4,000, while also noting he could not recall the exact amount. "We notified 3,766 property owners in town, and we would just start over and do that again," the staff member said regarding any future attempt.

Chairman Morgan said the commission should not leave the item unresolved. "If we table something, at some point in time, we need to do something with it," he said. After discussion, Morgan asked for a motion that the commission not forward the proposal to city council "at this time." A motion to deny the proposal carried on a recorded roll call with five votes in favor and none opposed.

Commissioners who voted yes (recorded on the roll call) were Board member Coleman, Board member Polter, Board member Frank, Board member Bake, and Chairman Morgan. The motion recorded no named mover or seconder in the public roll call excerpts.

The commission noted that denial at this meeting does not permanently bar the city from revisiting the code. Staff said any future attempt to reintroduce an amendment would require re-notifying all affected property owners and could include improved public communications, maps and workshops. "If we want to approach it with early workshops and things like that, we would totally start over," a board member said, adding that the city must follow statutory notice language required by state law.

The commission also raised the need to unify the official zoning map, noting two maps with different color coding currently exist in city records; staff said the official map kept in the city secretary's office would be consolidated and presented at a future meeting.

The commission's action was limited to taking no forward action to city council; no ordinance language was adopted or amended by the commission at this meeting.