Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Cibolo council denies requests to release land from ETJ, opens hearing on FM 1103 gas store and adopts parking limits around City Hall
Summary
Cibolo City Council members on Tuesday denied two landowners' requests to remove parcels from the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction and opened a public hearing on a conditional use permit for a 5,500-square-foot convenience store with fuel at 1636 FM 1103.
Cibolo City Council members on Tuesday denied two landowners' requests to remove parcels from the city's five-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction and opened a public hearing on a conditional use permit for a 5,500-square-foot convenience store with fuel at 1636 FM 1103. The council also considered a new parking ordinance to reserve spaces adjacent to City Hall for city business and heard staff updates on roads, an animal care facility and the upcoming solid-waste franchise RFP timeline.
The council voted to deny two separate petitions to release tracts from the city's ETJ under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 42. Staff recommended denial and cited the city's pending legal challenge to recent state law changes allowing deannexation without the council's approval. The council's action on each petition was a motion to deny, and the outcome for both items was recorded as unanimous denial by the council (7-0). City staff attorney Rick Vasquez summarized legal background and recommended denial; an attorney representing the property owners, Buck Benson, spoke in favor of the owners' requests and said the property would remain subject to county development rules if released.
Why it matters: denying the petitions preserves the city's jurisdiction over future development and retains the council's ability to review annexation and land-use decisions. Council members cited the pending lawsuit challenging the deannexation statute as a key reason to maintain the ETJ boundaries while litigation is unresolved.
Details on the ETJ motions: Council discussion referenced the ongoing multi-city lawsuit challenging the constitutionality and mechanics of the deannexation provisions in state law. Staff noted that the petitioners' parcels are largely vacant or contain a single-family residence; an owner representative argued the…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat

