Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Killeen Council denies petition to remove 25.6 acres from city limits; asks staff to propose zoning options
Summary
The City Council voted 5–0 July 7 to deny a petition to disannex roughly 25.6 acres along South Fort Hood Street, rejecting the applicant’s claim the city failed to provide required services. Council asked staff to return with zoning recommendations that could bring the property into compliance while preserving municipal land‑use controls.
The Killeen City Council voted 5–0 on July 7 to deny a petition by Stanley Seacrest to remove about 25.6 acres from the city’s corporate limits along South Fort Hood Street.
City planning staff told the council the parcels were annexed in 2008 with a service plan, and staff’s review found the city has met its legal obligations under that plan. Planning staff recommended disapproval, saying remaining development constraints were part of the original service plan and that the city retains important land‑use and code enforcement authority when property remains inside city limits.
The petition’s attorney, Tim Pearson of Cobb & Johns, argued the property lacks wastewater service and said state law sets deadlines for providing municipal services to involuntarily annexed land. “My client’s property still does not have wastewater service,” Pearson told the council, and he cautioned that if the council denies the petition the applicant could sue and seek mandatory attorney’s fees under state law.
Residents who spoke during the public hearing urged the council to deny the disannexation, warning that removing the land from the city would cede local zoning control to the county and could allow high‑impact uses that neighbors oppose. Several council members echoed concern about losing municipal regulatory authority and the potential for uses that would rely on city roads and services while providing little tax revenue.
After debate the council denied the petition. Councilmembers then asked staff to return with options to address the owner’s underlying concern about a legal‑nonconforming use—specifically to propose zoning or conditional‑use approaches that would permit the owner to continue operating while preserving the city’s ability to regulate future land use. Council discussed B‑4 or a B‑4 with a conditional‑use overlay as possible approaches to allow the existing salvage/used‑auto business to operate while restricting other industrial uses by right.
What happens next: staff will prepare zoning recommendations based on council direction and return for further council action. The applicant’s lawyer had warned of a potential lawsuit if the petition is denied; if that occurs state law may impose attorney’s‑fee awards. The council’s denial leaves the property inside city limits and under local land‑use rules for now.
