Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cibolo council votes to disapprove future‑land‑use amendment for 5590 Lower Sigin Road
Summary
After staff explained the applicant’s plan for an agricultural homestead at 5590 Lower Sigin Road, council members concluded the property’s current estate‑residential designation already allows residential agricultural uses and voted to disapprove the proposed comprehensive plan amendment.
CIBOLO — The Cibolo City Council moved on June 9 to disapprove a proposed amendment that would have changed the future‑land‑use designation for an approximately 11‑acre parcel at 5590 Lower Sigin Road from estate residential to rural residential‑agriculture.
Planning Manager Ivonne Brisco told council the applicant’s concept is a horticultural homestead (a residence with tree‑farm production and supporting structures) and that the Unified Development Code provides an agricultural homestead zoning path if the owners intend to live on the property. Brisco said the current estate‑residential place type is intended for large‑lot, low‑density residential development and already contemplates agricultural activities tied to residences.
Council and staff focused on whether the proposed map change was necessary. City Attorney Dan said the planning and zoning commission’s recommendation did not create a legal requirement to amend the future‑land‑use map and warned that changing a single parcel within a larger estate‑residential planning area could amount to what he called “spot flaming.” Based on that advice and the record from Planning & Zoning, council members concluded there was insufficient planning justification to amend the map.
A council member moved to disapprove the ordinance as written for agenda item 8A; the motion was seconded and the council recorded the motion in favor during the meeting. The transcript does not list a detailed roll‑call tally in the excerpt, but the presiding officer confirmed the motion carried.
Why it matters: Future‑land‑use map amendments are intended to reflect longer‑range planning for an area. Council cited the need to avoid piecemeal changes that could set a precedent for spot map changes in an otherwise estate‑residential planning area. Staff and the applicant were directed to continue discussions about the appropriate zoning route (an agricultural homestead rezoning, if desired) without amending the city’s long‑range map.
What’s next: The applicant may pursue a rezoning path consistent with agricultural homestead provisions. Council asked staff to continue working with the applicant and the planning commission to identify the appropriate zoning approach and to return any formal zoning applications to the commission and council for consideration.
Note on attribution: direct quotes and attributions in this story are drawn from the meeting transcript and are attributed to speakers who self‑identified on the record.
