Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning change for Kelly Elliott Road deadlocks after extensive neighbor opposition
Summary
A proposal to rezone three parcels near I‑20 at Kelly Elliott Road from single‑family (RS‑7.2) to neighborhood commercial split the Planning and Zoning Commission; commissioners debated traffic, drainage and the risk of multifamily conversion under state law, and a 4–4 tie (with one abstention) caused the motion to fail.
A request to change zoning for three parcels near the northwest corner of Kelly Elliott Road and Interstate 20 failed after tied votes and intense public comment about drainage, traffic and long‑term uses.
Virginia Renteria, senior planner, summarized the application as a request to rezone three parcels totaling about 2.717 acres from RS‑7.2 single‑family to neighborhood commercial. Renteria said the applicant would have to comply with TxDOT right‑of‑way and tree‑preservation requirements and that the site lacks buildings since a demolition in 2014.
Applicant representative Nikki Moore said neighborhood commercial is a low‑intensity, appropriate use for the highway corner and suggested the change would help market the property to small offices, medical or neighborhood services. Moore also referenced TxDOT’s Southeast Connector future plans and argued the parcel is geometrically constrained for multifamily development.
Opposition concentrated on drainage and access. Several speakers said clear‑cutting and demolition increased runoff and that adjacent homeowners have experienced repeated flooding. "We are getting inundated with water every time it rains," said David Love, a resident backing the property. Sam Shank, whose property fronts Kelly Elliott, said limited ingress and egress from a single access point raises safety and stacking concerns for Kelly Elliott and the I‑20 frontage.
Commissioners debated whether to approve straight neighborhood commercial zoning without a site plan (planned development). Some commissioners said neighborhood commercial is the best long‑term use for the corner; others said they needed a plan because many permitted uses could be intrusive and because Senate Bill 840 (cited in testimony) could allow some commercial/zoning outcomes to be repurposed for multifamily in the future.
Commissioner Blake moved to approve the rezoning and Commissioner Winkles seconded, but the final vote was a 4–4 tie (with one abstention noted), and the motion failed. The chair recorded the tally as tied and the case was not approved.
Because the motion failed, the zoning remains RS‑7.2. Staff and neighbors urged continued engagement if the owner elects to return with a planned development or a more detailed proposal addressing drainage and traffic mitigation.
