Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer asks Cibolo to release 23-acre Ortiz tract from ETJ; council opts to take no immediate action
Summary
A developer asked the Cibolo City Council to release about 23.329 acres known as the Ortiz tract from the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction; the council's staff recommended taking no action so statutory timelines would control the outcome if council does not act.
A developer representative asked the Cibolo City Council on May 12 to remove two tracts totaling 23.329 acres (the Ortiz tract, near 5711 Green Valley Road) from the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction, saying the request follows recent Texas Supreme Court guidance on ETJ releases.
Buck Benson, representing the developer, told the council the petition satisfies the paperwork requirements and cited the City of College Station decision to argue that the statute requires release if certain conditions are met. "The local government code imposes a mandatory duty on city officials to immediately release an area described in a release petition," Benson said, summarizing the developer's legal view and noting the petitioner's willingness to negotiate annexation later.
City staff and the city attorney advised a different procedural course. City Attorney Santee recommended that the council take no action at tonight's meeting, saying that if council neither affirmatively approves nor denies a petition, the statutory timelines will determine whether the release becomes effective. "My recommendation to the council based on the discussion is that you actually take no action," Santee said.
Mayor Cara Latimer explained the city's fiduciary and public-safety concerns tied to planning authority in the ETJ, and emphasized that the city wants to work with petitioners on safe, orderly development if annexation or development agreements are negotiated. She said the city maintains planning and code-enforcement roles (planning and zoning, unified development code) intended to protect road width, utilities and foundations.
Council did not vote to approve or deny the petition during the meeting; staff said it will continue discussions with the developer and that the statutory process would proceed if council takes no action.
What happens next: staff said it will meet with the developer to discuss potential annexation or development agreements and return to council as needed. The council's procedural choice to take no action leaves the petition's progression tied to state statutory timelines unless the council later votes otherwise.
