Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Guadalupe County approves development agreement for industrial data center amid objections and an abstention
Summary
Commissioners approved a development agreement with Palomino Alpha LLC for an industrial data center and related improvements after edits to remove a natural-gas plant reference; vote passed with three in favor, one opposed and one abstention.
Guadalupe County Commissioners Court voted to approve a development agreement with Palomino Alpha LLC for an industrial data center and related improvements, after removing language that had referred to a combined-cycle natural gas power plant.
The agreement carried on a 3–1–1 vote: three commissioners voted in favor, one voted against and one abstained because the judge said his family property lay inside the agreement boundary. County counsel noted the edit removing the natural-gas plant reference and clarified how future alterations would be handled.
County Attorney Mr. Ties said two substantive edits were made from the version reviewed previously: "the portion reading combined cycle natural gas power plant… was removed," and any amendment to the agreement would reset the grandfather date for county regulation across the entire parcel. The change means that if the agreement is amended later — for example by adding acreage — that later amendment date would become the new baseline for what county regulations apply.
Commissioners also sought clarification on allowable uses under the agreement. County counsel described the development’s authorized use as "industrial data center and related improvements," and said support buildings and infrastructure that directly serve the data center would be permitted. The agreement explicitly excludes residential uses; counsel said that if any portion of the original property were converted to residential uses the development agreement would be void.
Before the vote, the judge announced he would abstain from participation because his property and family property are included within the agreement boundary. After discussion and the roll call, court staff confirmed the motion carried with the three affirmative votes.
The court did not include a separate public hearing on the agreement at the meeting. Public comment earlier in the session included concerns about data-center projects in the area, but none of those speakers were formally tied in the record to the Palomino Alpha LLC agreement.
The court approved the agreement as amended and moved on to other agenda business.
