Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alcohol Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Weslaco commissioners pause vote on on‑premises wine and malt permit after residents raise safety, school proximity concerns
Summary
After public comment from nearby medical providers and residents who said the proposed alcohol sales site sits within 300 feet of a pediatric office and an elementary school, the Weslaco City Commission opened a public hearing and then voted to table a conditional use permit request for 512 Professional Drive until April.
The Weslaco City Commission on March 19 opened a public hearing on a conditional use permit for on‑premises wine and malt beverage sales at 512 Professional Drive and, after public comment, voted to table action until the April meeting.
The applicant, named in the notice as Ismael Reyes, requested the permit for a property in the Posada subdivision. The hearing drew three nearby business owners and residents who said the proposed business would be within 300 feet of medical offices and an elementary school. Cesar Hernandez, representing Smile Inc., told the commission that the proposed license would be “right across our parking lot” and “within 300 feet as it states on the state requirements,” and urged commissioners to “review this license and consider approving this motion based on those facts.”
Dr. Claudia Hernandez, who identified herself as a physician with an office at 420 Professional Drive, said she and other providers treat patients “from 6 months and up” and told the commission, “Why would they have alcohol so close to kids?” She said parents and patients had raised concerns since learning the business intended to serve alcohol on the premises. Resident Adrian Valdez said the site is “less than football field length” from a school and warned of DWI risk on the nearby expressway.
Mayor Adrian Gonzalez and commissioners opened the hearing after staff read the item into the record. A motion to open the public hearing was made and seconded; after the comment period a motion to close the hearing passed. City staff and the city attorney recommended additional time to consult with the applicant; the commission then voted to table the matter and asked staff to return with the item at the April meeting.
The applicant’s proposed hours and the application form referenced alcohol service from 12:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., which residents said raised safety concerns given the location and nearby pedestrian traffic. City staff indicated they have been in communication with the applicant and recommended additional time to resolve outstanding questions before a final decision.
The item was continued by formal motion; commissioners voted in favor and the motion passed. No final permit was granted at the March 19 meeting.
The hearing record shows the matter will return to the commission at its next regularly scheduled meeting in April for further consideration.
