Bonham council adopts Corridor Commercial zoning and nonconforming-use changes amid formal objection

The Bonham City Council on Dec. 1 adopted a package of zoning changes that creates a Corridor Commercial (CC) district along State Highway 56 and revises the city's rules for nonconforming uses, including shortening abandonment periods and limiting rebuild rights.

The council adopted the CC district — intended by staff to concentrate retail, service and office uses along major corridors — and an amendment to Article 16 of the Zoning Ordinance addressing nonconforming uses. Ross Altobelli, Director of Development Services, told the council the CC district is intended "to provide for retail, service, and office uses along major regional transportation corridors" and to offer area, setback and height rules tailored to high-visibility corridors.

The nonconforming-use amendments shorten the abandonment period from 24 months to 365 days, add a process for City Council to adopt a resolution ordering a nonconforming use to stop, and include a rule that a structure damaged beyond 70% of appraised value may not be rebuilt unless it conforms to the updated code. City staff framed the amendments as an effort to align local rules with state law changes enacted in 2024.

A formal written objection by resident and property owner Jade Custer was entered into the record and presented at the meeting. Custer argued the rezoning relies on an unlawful fiscal motive, noting that the staff notification and reports state an intent to "increase the tax base." Custer said, "This rezoning creates a forced commercial corridor that harms existing residents, violates core Texas zoning principles, and exposes the City to real legal and financial liability — without a single study to justify it." He urged Council to deny or at least table the cases until traffic, drainage, economic and legal analyses are completed.

The objection packet attached to the minutes cites Texas case law (including City of Austin v. Whittington and Brookside Village v. Comeau) and summarizes Senate Bill 929 (2024), which requires notice, appraisal/expert determinations, and compensatory or continued-use remedies when municipalities terminate or restrict nonconforming uses. The packet and staff exhibits are included in the official record.

Council members approved the set of zoning ordinances on the consent of Council after public hearings; most rezones passed unanimously. The minutes show that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval on the items before Council. Minutes do not record a council reply to the legal claims in Custer's packet beyond the public-hearing process.

What happens next: the ordinances are recorded as adopted in the minutes and the formal objection is preserved in the public record. The objection identifies potential legal and fiscal exposure under SB 929 and state takings law; the packet recommends tabling actions until required studies and SB 929 compliance steps are completed. The council did not, at this meeting, adopt supplemental studies or a fiscal note addressing those claims.

Ending: The minutes and all exhibits (staff reports, maps, statutory summaries, and Custer's packet) were attached to the official record at the close of the Dec. 1 meeting.