The Brenham Planning and Zoning Commission was divided on Monday in its approval of a request to build a new gas station and convenience store on the north side of town.

The old Terminix building at 804 East Blue Bell Road.
The Brenham Planning and Zoning Commission on
Monday voted 3-2 in favor of a request from a
developer seeking to redevelop the property with a
gas station and convenience store. The item will
now go before the city council on June 6th.
(courtesy City of Brenham)

After extended discussion, the commission voted 3-2 to approve a request from Adam Griffin of 30K Holdings, LLC to put a Zippy J’s at the site of the vacant Terminix pest control building at the southeast corner of East Blue Bell Road and Gay Hill Street.  However, the vote came with the condition that a 10-foot screening fence be placed on the east property line between the proposed convenience store and the adjacent Wee Care for All Childcare Center.

Voting in favor were commissioners Cyndee Smith, Chris Cangelosi and Dr. Deanna Alfred, while Calvin Kossie and Darren Heine were opposed.  Keith Behrens and Cayte Neil were absent. 

The vote of approval came after a motion to deny the request, but the motion failed 2-3.  Kossie and Heine voted to deny, while Smith, Cangelosi and Dr. Alfred were against denial. 

Those who spoke from the public included the applicant, Griffin, as well as Larry Lazare, owner of Wee Care for All, and a teacher at the childcare center.  Much of the discussion revolved around traffic at the site and how the business could impact the daycare. 

The request will now go to the city council for a public hearing on June 6th.  The council can choose to follow the commission’s recommendation to add the screening fence, move forward with the application as is without it, add further restrictions, or deny the item altogether. 

Four other requests came before the commission on Monday, and each were approved unanimously.  They were:

  • A commercial replat of 2.609 acres at the southeast corner of Brookside Drive and Highway 36 North for the Brookside Food Truck Park.  In January, the city council approved a specific use permit request for the food truck park.
  • A residential replat of 8,666 square feet of vacant land at 708 Cottonwood Street, to divide into two lots for future single-family residential development.
  • A residential replat of 1.136 acres at 503 West Alamo Street, to split into two lots so that the owner can sell a portion of the large lot.
  • A residential replat of 5.69 acres of vacant land generally located east of Cantey Street and north of Oak Hollow Lane, to make 15 lots for future single-family residential development in the Heritage Oaks subdivision.

Click here to view the agenda packet for Monday's meeting.

What’s your Reaction?


  1. I work nights losding trucks and I read the comments when I get a break and again I am behooved. This is another example of tax payers paying for the entitlement of big business owners. I don’t get any benefit of these street lights and road widening. The work is done for the business not for me. I just pay higher rent since my landlord has higher property taxes. It is the increase of traffic and big rigs that should make new store owners pay for the signals and widen the roads. After all, they are the store owners that are getting rich with the stores.

  2. Calvin Kossie, Darren Heine, thank you for standing up against big brother. Will this new store require donation and loss of public street, to the development like other location did? Was that a even asked? I Can’t wait to see how city mayer and council votes. Hopefully there will be more questions.

  3. If Condition No.1 is a 10’ fence along the east property line, then Condition No.2 should be added that 30K Holdings be required to pay for the installation of a 4-way signal light at the intersection of FM 577 and FM 2935/Gay Hill Street. It’s going to be needed.

    Just what we need, another gas station/convenience store along the 5.2 mile long FM 577, which currently has 5 convenience stores within its short length, 3 of which are only 1/2 mile from this proposed location, AND a 6th one that is currently under construction.

    1. Why should the store have to pay for your traffic signal that is on your wishlist? The other store got a new signal and new widening at old chappell hill road. That is not right for you to suggest a business owner to pay lots of money for something that they already got for free at another spot in town.

      1. A lot of times these things are shared between the city and developer. The developer is the reason the need was created so yes they should have to contribute to the light. Others will see a benefit so the city should contribute as well. Similar to impact fees. Residents that have been paying for years in taxes should not have to provide developers adding impact to existing infrastructure for no cost and simply walk into the system they’ve never paid into. Unless you are saying you’re all for subsidizing developers at the cost of existing taxpayers then yeah they should pay nothing.

      2. No, YOU are Wrong. The signal at Old Chappell Hill Road was there looooooonnnng before that Zippy was built. The “new” signal you mention was an upgrade/revision needed for the widening of Old Chappell Hill, which WAS NOT done solely for Zippy but for other traffic needs along Old Chappell Hill as well.

        Why should the citizens of the State of Texas have to pay for a signal that will be needed at this Gay Hill Road intersection due to a new store WANTING to locate at this intersection??

        1. A light would be needed when this gas station is eventually created there even though this is one of the dumbest things ever since there are so many convenience stores within 1 mile of this location. Dumb! Just plain dumb!

        2. I’m not wrong. Check with City Hall. Traffic impact analysis is required if the need is established by the new development. If the traffic counts determine that a slowing of traffic is required then it is evaluated what is the best method of this. You take the number of vehicles, width of the road, surrounding businesses/institutions/residences, etc., into account and then it is determined what is the best control method for traffic. The city doesn’t simply say yes we will cover the cost of a $300,000 – $500,000 light for you Mr./Mrs. developer. You created this need however these are public streets so there is a duty to cover some of the costs because not only will the business utilize and contribute to the cost so will the public. This is where cost share comes in. Are retrofits to existing lights handled differently. Yes. Are new light costs always covered the same no. But many times there is a sharing of costs for new lights. Get a quote from someone at City Hall and share it and let’s see who’s info is correct and who’s is not. Old lights were probably handled differently than the way costs are distributed today.

Back to top button