Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Hurst council approves first reading for Castle Liquor special-use permit and signage revision for retail site

Hurst City Council · December 9, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After public hearings, Hurst City Council approved first-reading ordinance 26-15 to allow packaged alcohol sales for Castle Liquor at 1222 West Hurst Boulevard and approved Ordinance 26-16 (first reading) for a 50-foot pole-sign revision at a shopping center on Bridal Freeway. Applicants and their representatives spoke in favor; no public opposition was recorded.

Hurst City Council held public hearings and approved two land-use items on first reading: a special-use permit for packaged alcohol sales at 1222 West Hurst Boulevard (Ordinance 26-15) and a site-plan revision limited to signage for property at 725 Bridal Freeway (Ordinance 26-16).

For the Castle Liquor application, staff described a proposed ~1,100-square-foot business to occupy Suite 400 in the Fanning Business Park. Rahul Patel, the intended owner, was represented at the meeting by Swades Gautam, who said Patel could not attend due to a family emergency and asked the council to approve the permit. After closing the public comment period a council member moved to approve the ordinance (first reading); the motion carried on voice vote.

On the signage request, staff said the application was for a pole sign with a brick facade to increase visibility for an underperforming back building in a two-building shopping center. The property owner, identifying himself as Guy and Greg, told the council he has owned the property about 20 years and believes new signage will attract tenants and lift the center’s performance. The council moved to approve Ordinance 26-16 on first reading and the motion carried.

No members of the public registered opposition on the record during either hearing. Both approvals were recorded as first readings; further council action is required for final adoption where applicable.