[dropcap]V[/dropcap]oluntary annexation is one of the means by which a city can agree to annex property to be included in its city limits. That method was used by the Nances, the Bradshaws, and other interests in asking the city of Kyle to annex their 9,800 acres of land due west of Kyle. The city did so.
Several questions arise concerning that voluntary annexation:
1. Chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government Code states that annexation must occur in accordance with a “comprehensive plan.” Where can citizens view the Nance-Bradshaw annexation plan online? What comprehensive plan does it adhere to?
2. There are four large categories of zoning for land: residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural. Kyle gave an “inaugural” [initial] zoning of “agricultural” to the 9,800 acres. Does that mean the land will not be developed into thousands of acres of homes?
3. If/when Nance-Bradshaw wish to convert their zoning from Agricultural to Residential, in what ways can citizens who are concerned about water availability, or about other issues, protest a zoning change?
4. Voluntary annexation does not confer the immediate right for water, wastewater service, roads, or other services by a date certain. How/when would Kyle plan to go to the horrendous expense of providing those services to the enormous ranch?
5. A bridge near the northern boundary of the Nance-Bradshaw Ranch, over the Blanco River, is desired by the owners. Such a bridge is estimated to cost (now) at least $30 million. CAMPO almost surely will decline to include the expensive bridge in its 2040 plan when CAMPO meets in October. Since the ranch already is served by at least two roads along its southern borders, shouldn’t the city of Kyle also refuse to burden Kyle taxpayers with a $30-million debt that will benefit only a handful of ranch developers, and for a bridge that is unnecessary, to boot?
Barbara Hopson
