Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kennedale council unanimously denies rezoning request by GreenMark Waste Solutions
Summary
The Kennedale City Council on March 18 voted unanimously to deny PZ Case 25-1, a proposed rezoning of three parcels on West Kennedale Parkway so GreenMark Waste Solutions could convert the former Kennedale Campers site into a corporate headquarters and fleet storage yard.
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Kennedale City Council on March 18 voted unanimously to deny PZ Case 25-1, a proposed rezoning of three parcels on West Kennedale Parkway so GreenMark Waste Solutions could convert the former Kennedale Campers site into a corporate headquarters and fleet storage yard.
The proposal covered 409 and 413 West Kennedale Parkway (Block 2, Lots 4A and 4B) and 429 West Kennedale Parkway (Block 2, Lot 5R-1R) in the Woodley Acres addition and would have changed the parcels from OT‑4 (Old Town Subdistrict 4) to a planned development. The council’s decision followed a public hearing, presentations by the applicant and staff, multiple resident concerns, and a lengthy council discussion.
Supporters said the company planned site improvements, masonry screening, landscaping and limits on on‑site activity. Scott Thibodeau of Mission Ridge Consultants, representing the applicant, told council the PD would “ensure that no waste processing or dumping happens on the site,” that outdoor storage would be limited to fleet vehicles, and that the applicant planned new equipment and facade improvements to align with Old Town design standards.
Nearby resident Melissa Ward said she has lived on Woodley Lane for about 35 years and urged council to consider neighbors when deciding whether to allow trucks and storage at the rear of the property. “If the garbage trucks are gonna be in the backyard, the smell, the noise, just displeases me,” Ward said during the public hearing.
City planning staff explained the site’s compatibility with the city’s comprehensive plan and future land‑use map but noted the parcel sits just outside the core Old Town area and that a PD would be used to control specific operational details. Planning staff said the site’s undeveloped back portion would require engineering and likely detention if it were paved or redeveloped.
Company representative Clayton Huddleston said operations begin early, adding, “Operations start early in the morning between 3 and 5.” He described the initial use as container and equipment storage with eventual scale‑up over time; at full build‑out he said the company envisioned up to 50 trucks and 50–75 employees.
During council questions and public comment, neighbors raised repeated concerns about drainage into a creek behind the site, noise from early‑morning engine startups and backup alarms, odor from stored containers and porta‑potties, and on‑site cleaning and wash‑water handling. The applicant said wash bays, grease traps and oil‑water separators would be installed and that wash water would be routed to the city sewer under required permits; the applicant and staff also cited compliance requirements with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).
The proposed PD included multiple restrictions the applicant said would limit neighborhood impacts: a solid masonry screening fence at least 8 feet high, a 50‑foot operational buffer from rear residential properties with evergreen screening, maximum parking limits (31 spaces), downward‑directed lighting, limits on idling near the buffer (a stated maximum idling time of 10–20 minutes), no on‑site waste processing, and enforcement language to be added to the PD.
Council members debated whether the site fit the long‑term Old Town vision, and several said the parcel’s proximity to existing residences and the Old Town corridor made the proposed fleet/storage use inappropriate in that location. After additional public comment and applicant answers, a councilmember moved to deny the rezoning request; a second followed and the motion passed unanimously.
The denial leaves the site’s current OT‑4 zoning in place; council did not approve any alternate land‑use or impose any further direction at the meeting. The applicant indicated interest in other Kennedale locations but did not present an alternative that the council acted on.
The council’s vote concludes PZ Case 25‑1 for now; any future application for the property would require a new filing and public hearing.
Votes at a glance: PZ Case 25‑1 — Rezoning request (OT‑4 to PD) for 409, 413 and 429 West Kennedale Parkway — Motion to deny passed unanimously (council vote recorded as unanimous).

