Planning commission postpones decision on Lower Seguin Road land‑use change after requests for more detail

The Cibolo Planning and Zoning Commission postponed action on a requested amendment to the city’s future land use map for a 11.050‑acre parcel at 5590 Lower Seguin Road after commissioners said they lacked critical information about the proposed operation.

Staff introduced the public hearing for Preiss Trees Worldwide LLC (applicant) and said the request would change the parcel’s designation from estate residential to rural residential/agricultural in the Cibolo Tomorrow Comprehensive Plan. Planning staff noted that, under the city's Unified Development Code (UDC), a plant nursery would be classified as "agricultural sales and services," which the UDC treats as a commercial use and is not permitted in residential zoning. Olivia, planning staff, summarized the request and the relevant UDC criteria for FLUM amendments.

Mayor Cara Latimer — who addressed the commission during the citizens-to-be-heard period — encouraged collaboration between city council and Planning & Zoning on development agreements, saying, "I don't like it when we silo... I appreciate you and your voice matters." Her remarks framed broader council interest in the project and prompted commissioner attention to council–commission coordination at later workshop meetings.

Resident Carol Ladimer urged the commission to avoid treating small family farms as commercial operations: "It isn't a gap in our UDC... We live on our farms. We work our farms." She said many area property owners live on and work their land and that ordinary farm operations should not be equated with commercial nurseries.

Applicant DJ Austin described the proposed operation as a small‑scale grower using conservation practices and selling mainly via wholesale or online channels. "It will exclusively be online sales. There will be no on‑the‑property hand‑to‑hand sales," Austin said, adding the owners had talked to neighbors and had not received pushback.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant for more precise operational details, including whether the owner intends to reside on the parcel, the square footage and type of greenhouse or structures planned, the expected intensity of traffic and truck movements, and how much of the 11.05 acres would be used for nursery operations. Planning staff explained the distinction in the UDC between incidental greenhouses associated with a residence and a commercial agricultural‑sales operation, and noted that a FLUM amendment would be followed by a formal zoning change if the commission and council proceed.

Several commissioners said the packet did not include enough documentation — such as a clear operations plan, phasing of structures, and details that would allow the body to determine whether the UDC's agricultural or agricultural‑sales classification was appropriate. One commissioner recommended tabling or postponing the item to allow the applicant and staff to work through the missing details.

The commission voted to postpone consideration of the FLUM amendment. The chair asked the applicant to work with city staff to provide the additional information commissioners requested, and staff said it would advise the applicant on possible next steps (including zoning options or deed restrictions) before the matter returns to the commission.

What’s next: The applicant and planning staff will meet to clarify residency intent, the proposed intensity of operations, structure sizes, and any possible deed restrictions or zoning strategies. The item will return to a future Planning & Zoning agenda once staff and the applicant supply the requested documentation.