Waxahachie council delays decision on large Minto Communities rezoning after hours of public comment

Mayor Billy Wallace opened a public hearing on a request by the applicant (referred to in the record as both “Minto” and “Mento”) for a planned-development zoning change at or near 300 Brookside Road and then accepted public comment and a continuance request from the applicant.

The applicant's representative, Richard, asked the council to continue the case because two council members were absent and the applicant was still working to secure property-owner agreements tied to the project’s land closings. Richard asked the council to continue the item to the city’s January meeting so the applicant could finalize outstanding items and avoid a rushed approval.

Residents who spoke at the hearing expressed mixed views. Kathy Casel, who said she lives on Brookside Road, urged council members to review Better Business Bureau complaints and raised concerns that the project had “gone on and on” and that prior approvals had led to partially completed developments in other cities. Dean Sotomayor, who also lives on Brookside Road, urged the council to give the applicant more time to demonstrate the project’s merits and recommended that council members and staff visit an existing project by the developer before voting. Heather Fagan, a long-time meeting attendee, said Minto had been responsive to many of her requests but warned the city could end up with a lower-quality developer if the council did not move forward carefully. Terry Nay said she opposed the development primarily because of its proposed density. Geneva Alcala, a school-district employee, said the city’s schools are nearing capacity and urged the council to consider traffic and public-service impacts.

Council members focused discussion on procedural fairness and packet timing. Several council members said they wanted the full five-member council to vote on a development of this size. Council members and staff also noted late-submitted materials and the need for adequate time for subject-matter experts to review any changes. One councilmember said staff must receive the applicant’s “best and final” offer by Jan. 5 so staff can prepare a packet in time for potential January hearings.

After discussing scheduling options (January 5, January 20, January 26 and February dates were mentioned), a councilmember moved to postpone items 9, 10, 11 and 12 to Jan. 5 with the explicit direction that the applicant provide dates for a work session and submit final materials as soon as practicable. The motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote.

What happens next: the council’s action postponed formal consideration; the applicant was asked to provide dates for a work session and to submit final materials for staff review in early January. The council indicated it may reconvene or call a special meeting later in January if necessary.

Quotes

"We don't feel like trying to force it through tonight would be the right thing to do," applicant representative Richard said, asking for additional time.

"This has gone on and on and on ... we fought them tooth and toenail," public commenter Kathy Casel said, urging caution and noting complaints she said she found about the developer.

"If we don't go forward with them, we might get somebody else who is rushed," resident Dean Sotomayor said, describing a concern that a different developer could produce piecemeal results.

Ending

The council did not vote on the zoning merits; it voted instead to postpone consideration and to require the applicant to provide materials early in January so staff and the full council can review them before any final vote.