San Angelo council approves rezoning of 345‑acre tract for light manufacturing after hours of public comment
Loading...
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing focused on water, noise and transparency, the San Angelo City Council voted 6–1 on Jan. 13 to rezone 345.27 acres near US‑67 to Light Manufacturing, a move planners say prepares the site for heavy industrial users — including interest from a large data‑center prospect — while triggering later site‑plan safeguards.
The San Angelo City Council on Jan. 13 approved a rezoning and comprehensive‑plan amendment for a 345.27‑acre city‑owned tract near US Highway 67 and Harriet Road, clearing the way for light‑manufacturing uses by a 6–1 vote after more than three hours of public comment and council questions.
Mayor Tom Thompson moved to approve the ordinance, and the motion carried following roll‑call votes. Council members and staff emphasized that the vote changes only the property’s zoning designation; future permits, site plans and required reviews would still be needed before any building could begin.
Why it matters: City planning staff said the site’s proximity to an AEP substation, transmission lines and industrial corridor makes it a logical location for industrial development, and staff recommended Light Manufacturing because it offers regulatory tools — for noise, buffering, visible emissions and site design — that planners said will protect neighboring properties. The rezoning also aligns with an ongoing Northeast master plan for the area, staff said.
Public concerns and technical clarifications: More than a dozen residents urged caution. Heather Wiley, who gave her address to the council, said she had read media and city material suggesting the developer Skybox intends a closed‑loop cooling system and asked who would monitor water use and what contaminants would be released when systems are flushed. Wiley said: “There are significant water concerns that I and many other residents have regarding the data center” and asked for transparency about total water needs.
Planning staff and local economic developers provided technical context in response. Aaron Venoy, planning and development services director, said Light Manufacturing includes standards that city staff would enforce at the site‑plan stage — including a cited 55‑decibel limit at the property line and urban‑design review triggers for structures larger than 25,000 square feet. He stressed that zoning is a first step and that additional protections are applied during subsequent permitting and plan review.
Michael Looney, an economic‑development official who said he had discussed the project with the developer’s engineer, said the proposed campus would use closed‑loop cooling and explained a per‑building top‑off approach: “Each building … would use between 15 to 20,000 gallons of water per cooling system, at top off. That water lasts for approximately five years because it internally cycles,” he said, adding that discharge water is treated by membrane filtration under EPA and TCEQ rules.
Legal and procedural concerns: Multiple speakers and counsel warned about the Texas vested‑rights rules. Residents argued that approving broad Light Manufacturing zoning now — rather than a planned‑development (PD) approach with conditions spelled out publicly — could vest by‑right uses and limit the city’s leverage later. Staff noted the city can still negotiate 380 agreements or place deed restrictions tied to economic incentives and that acceptance of a complete development application triggers vesting protections; planners said the city does not intend to accept an application that would prematurely vest rights before agreed conditions or infrastructure requirements are established.
Next steps: With rezoning approved, any developer must submit a complete site‑plan and building‑permit applications that will trigger urban‑design review, noise and emissions testing, buffering requirements and other ordinance protections. Council and staff said they expect further negotiations — including the possibility of a Chapter 380 economic‑development agreement spelling out infrastructure, recapture and operational expectations — and staff signaled a town hall with the developer will be held to answer residents’ outstanding questions.
The council’s vote does not authorize construction; it changes what uses are permissible and makes the land more marketable for industrial users. Staff said the site’s development will still require infrastructure agreements, site design approvals and regulatory permits from state agencies such as the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for any discharges.
What residents asked for next: multiple public speakers urged a dedicated town hall with Skybox or similar developer, clearer water‑use and emissions data, enforceable conditions written before accepting completed project applications, and stronger public‑review opportunities. Planning staff said they will return with site‑plan review materials and options to use 380 agreements and deed restrictions where appropriate.
The council’s action: rezoning/adoption of the comprehensive plan amendment passed 6–1.
Provenance: This article draws on the staff presentation and Q&A by Aaron Venoy (planning and development services director) and public comments and technical clarifications logged during the Jan. 13 meeting (topic introduction: SEG 1719; topic finish: SEG 3761). Representative public comments and technical responses are recorded in the meeting transcript and summarized above.
