Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council annexes 1.57 acres on Daisy Lane; rezoning to light industrial tabled after resident objections
Summary
Council approved first‑and‑final full‑purpose annexation of a 1.57‑acre strip at Daisy Lane and Suffield Lane; a companion request to rezone the larger parcel to light industrial was tabled after traffic, school‑crossing and truck‑noise concerns from neighbors and a planning commission non‑recommendation.
The Buda City Council on March 25 adopted an ordinance on first and final reading to annex approximately 1.57 acres along Daisy Lane — a 50‑foot strip of frontage that had remained outside the city limits when earlier parcels were annexed. The annexation was approved without conditions; the newly annexed strip will take the city's default AG zoning until any future rezoning is approved.
City planning staff explained the annexation is largely a procedural correction to incorporate frontage previously omitted from the city's limits. "The annexation for this property ... is essentially bringing in 50 feet of the property of the subject property into the city limits," Angela Kennedy told council during the public hearing. Kennedy said the annexation alone would establish AG zoning for the strip and that a separate zoning application (K‑2) asks to rezone the broader property to light industrial.
Council also opened a public hearing on the rezoning request, but the applicant asked to table the zoning vote to April 15 while staff and the developer discuss public improvement agreements. The property owner seeks to rezone roughly 43.82 acres from B‑3 (business) to LI (light industrial). Planning staff said a traffic impact analysis for a hypothetical industrial use showed the project would likely require signalization improvements at Hillside Terrace and Daisy Lane and—most crucially—the completion of a missing segment of Suffield Drive to carry most truck traffic to I‑35 rather than through neighborhood streets.
Residents who live alongside Suffield Drive and nearby subdivisions told council they oppose industrial uses because of noise, heavy truck traffic and safety for schoolchildren. Juan Renee Delgado, who lives at 311 Suffield Drive, said tractor‑trailer traffic already cuts through neighborhood streets and that adding industrial traffic would increase risk. "These 18‑wheelers, they don't ... have respect. They're bigger. My son doesn't even get to play outside," Delgado said. Another resident, Alicia Lopez, said her brother is disabled and receives in‑home therapy; she said fast, heavy traffic on Suffield raises safety concerns during walks.
Kennedy told council the Planning and Zoning Commission had not recommended approval of the rezoning because the public infrastructure impacts had not been resolved; that means council would require a supermajority to approve if the application returns without an agreement on improvements. Council member Scott Smith moved to table the rezoning request so the developer and city can craft a public‑improvement agreement; council seconded and the motion to table carried.
Ending: Council approved the annexation to bring the frontage into the city and agreed to consider the rezoning at a future meeting after the developer and staff negotiate commitments for traffic and public‑improvement work. Residents asked that any future action include clear plans for Suffield Drive connection, stormwater and noise mitigation.
