Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves site plan for convenience store with fuel sales after PNZ denial; members debate ordinance definitions
Summary
After Planning & Zoning denied a site plan 7‑0, the council debated whether a convenience store with fuel sales met the existing PD allowances and unanimously approved the site plan, noting the city ordinance’s concept‑plan language may require clarification.
The McLendon‑Chisholm City Council on Oct. 27 unanimously approved a site plan for a convenience store with fuel sales on the northeast corner of State Highway 205 and FM 550, despite a prior 7‑0 denial from the Planning & Zoning (PNZ) commission.
Staff said the application is administratively complete and conforms to the city's code of ordinances, subject to engineering approval. PNZ voted 7‑0 to deny the proposal; council members spent substantial time reviewing ordinance definitions to determine whether the proposed use matched the plan development (PD) that the council approved in 2022.
Councilmember Towery said he attended PNZ meetings and spoke with nearby operators and found the proposed project to be a high‑quality convenience store willing to work with city design requests. Several members, including Brewer and Powers, noted that a convenience store with pumps is an allowed use under the PD and that the site plan conforms to the plan development documents as written.
Bev Stivens (speaker 11, staff) read ordinance definitions on the record: an auto‑repair garage is an enclosed facility for repairs; an auto service station includes indoor repair and storage with the exception of fuel dispensing operations; and a convenience store with or without fuel sales is defined by principal gasoline/petroleum sales combined with a retail convenience component. She said the applicant’s plan does not propose the prohibited uses that PNZ discussed (auto repair garage or full service auto service station).
After deliberation, the council moved and seconded approval; the mayor reported the vote as unanimous. Councilmembers said the discussion showed a need to review PD and concept‑plan language to reduce future confusion between concept plans and final site plans.
The council directed staff to proceed with engineering review and to return any required modifications or conditions at the next available meeting. The developer (identified in the meeting as Mr. Berry) and staff were present for questions during deliberations.
