Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Annexation Development Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks Rosenberg water and sewer for 6.638-acre ETJ site; council presses for annexation or development agreement
Summary
Developer asked for city water and sewer service for a 6.638-acre parcel in the Rosenberg extraterritorial jurisdiction. Council and staff discussed voluntary annexation, non-annexation development agreements and condominium-style sales; no formal action was taken.
A developer told Rosenberg City Council on May 6 that he wants municipal water and sewer service for a 6.638-acre parcel in the city27s extraterritorial jurisdiction (SA Stone survey, Abstract No. 392) but does not want immediate annexation.
Staff position and legal constraints: City staff (Rigo) recapped that section 29.31 of the city code requires council approval for water or sewer service outside city limits and that the developer would be responsible for all extension costs, permits, easements, tap fees, impact fees and inspection deposits. Staff recommended the developer either submit a voluntary annexation petition or negotiate a non-annexation development agreement that sets conditions for future annexation and development.
Developer27s rationale: The developer said he plans a commercial condominium-style project that would sell individual building units while holding land in common (a condominium declaration). He said the city27s Unified Development Code currently lacks provisions for condominium ownership of commercial units and that annexation prior to creating a condominium regime could restrict the ability to sell units. The developer asked the council to allow service under a development agreement while the parties work out land-planning and condominium declarations.
City concerns and next steps: Staff and council members pressed for enforceable limits in any utility agreement (for example, restrictions on multifamily, sexually oriented uses, or other uses the council finds unacceptable). City staff said the administration commonly negotiates development agreements to impose use restrictions and time limits and noted the standard surcharge for out-of-city utilities (discussed at 1.5 times the regular rate) is not mandated by state law but is a local policy option. Council members asked for a short timeline; the developer said he expects plats to be filed and to have negotiations completed by June and staff suggested a 30-day target for drafting a development agreement.
Action: Council took no vote on the request. Staff indicated support for negotiating a development agreement that would include use restrictions, a time limit and remedies; the developer said he is willing to enter a development agreement and to consider annexation after selling units.
