Commissioners press Big Tex Trailers on timeline as company seeks permanent SUP for IH‑30 yard
Loading...
Summary
At a lengthy public hearing, Big Tex representatives said completing required site improvements would cost about $1.5 million, and asked the commission to remove the SUP time limit; commissioners urged a firm deadline and enforcement language rather than perpetual approval.
Big Tex Trailers’ representatives told the Rockwall Planning and Zoning Commission on March 31 that they expect about $1.5 million in site improvements if the commission removes the time limit tied to their specific‑use permit (SUP).
Staff summarized the history of the SUP for the property at 2260 East IH‑30, noting the SUP was originally approved in 2008 with finite operational conditions and has been extended several times. The original ordinance prohibited certain outside storage and required infrastructure improvements; the applicant repeatedly requested extensions rather than completing the work, staff said.
Dub DuFray of DuFray & Associates, speaking for the applicant and the owner, said contractors are in line and the applicant intends to complete the work. “For the record, we’re looking at around $1,500,000 at this point,” DuFray said, framing the request as a business decision about whether to invest if permanence is not assured.
Several commissioners pushed back on a request for perpetual approval. “They feel like I’m being strong‑armed,” Commissioner Hageman said, describing the applicant’s position that they will not invest until they have certainty. Hageman added that while a longer time horizon might be acceptable, he opposed granting the SUP “forever.” Another commissioner said a perpetual SUP was “way too long” and suggested a 10‑year limit as a compromise.
Staff said Henry’s draft ordinance would require a “reasonable amount of time” to make the improvements and noted a specific operational deadline in the draft: the work should be complete by 01/01/2027. Commissioners asked what would happen if the applicant failed to meet the deadline; staff said the SUP could be revoked.
The discussion centered on two competing considerations: the cost to the applicant of doing extensive infrastructure work without long‑term certainty, and the commission’s desire to protect future land‑use flexibility and the IH‑30 corridor’s long‑term character. Commissioners asked the applicant to return with a concrete, enforceable schedule and to negotiate a term that gives the applicant investment security while preserving municipal control over long‑range land use.
Next steps: staff asked the applicant to discuss potential time frames with their client and return with a proposed term and documented schedule for required improvements. No final vote on permanence was recorded in the hearing.
