Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Granbury council unanimously approves voluntary annexation of 2,090 acres amid heavy public opposition
Summary
The Granbury City Council on Jan. 6 approved Ordinance No. 26‑02 to annex 2,090 acres at 2801 W. Highway 377. Council and staff said annexation gives the city regulatory control; residents pressed for transparency, environmental studies and water‑use data.
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Granbury City Council voted unanimously (6‑0) on Jan. 6 to adopt Ordinance No. 26‑02, accepting a voluntary petition from Granbury Ready Land Partners to annex roughly 2,090 acres at 2801 West Highway 377.
City Attorney Jeremy Sorel told the council the petition met the legal requirements under Chapter 43 of the Texas Local Government Code and reviewed the notice and hearing requirements the city followed. "There is absolutely no application for any development received by the city as to that property," Sorel said, stressing that annexation itself does not authorize a particular industrial or commercial use.
Community Development Director Kara Walley said staff had reviewed infrastructure context and recommended approval of the voluntary annexation so the city could apply its development standards and zoning control to future proposals.
The public hearing drew lengthy, often emotional testimony. Neighbors and public‑health professionals warned that large energy facilities or data centers could place heavy demands on Lake Granbury and local aquifers, increase noise and air pollution, and sit near schools, nursing homes and the hospital. "I don't think there's any reason that you should sacrifice the health of our community for any amount of money, especially the children," said Dr. Shannon Watts, a board‑certified pediatrician who urged the council to delay action until water‑use and air‑quality studies are available.
Several speakers urged the council to delay the vote so county processes (including a proposed commissioner‑court moratorium under Chapter 231, subchapter K) and independent environmental monitoring could be completed. Other residents said annexation was appropriate to allow the city to regulate development more strictly than county rules permit; Tony Callaway, who spoke in favor, said developments will occur either in the county or the city and that city jurisdiction provides a mechanism to require higher standards.
The mayor read the ordinance series and the council voted to adopt 26‑02 by motion; the mayor announced the measure passed 6‑0. Council members emphasized that annexation brings the land under city zoning and permitting processes, and that any specific development proposal would require additional applications, public notice and, where required, separate hearings and approvals.
What happens next: Annexation adds the area to the city’s regulatory jurisdiction. Any land‑use applications, permits or incentive negotiations for particular projects would be considered separately, with public notice and hearings required by city code. No development application is on file with the city for the annexed property as of the Jan. 6 meeting.

