MARFA — In a 78-page report recommending that City Council vote to deny a rezone request from American Electric Power (AEP), the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission concluded that “the negative consequences for the city and its residents far outweigh the negative consequences for the applicant” when considering spot zoning, the city’s 2017 comprehensive plan, public feedback and more. AEP is requesting a zoning change from residential to industrial on a lot on the east side of town to allow for the construction of a new substation.
The property in question is a four-acre lot at the corner of E. Oak and N. Aparejo streets just before the Alamito Creek bridge. In January, AEP applied for a rezone on behalf of the current owners of the property, several siblings who are currently in litigation over the multigenerational property and eager to sell.
AEP is looking to buy the lot for the development of a new $7 to $10 million substation triple the size of the existing Oak Street substation a block away, which supplies the city of Marfa with power. AEP External Affairs Manager Fred Guerrero spoke in two public hearings P&Z held on the rezone this spring, stating that the relocation and expansion is being pursued to stabilize the town’s power supply. He said the existing station’s capacity of 5 MVA (megavolt-amperes) was routinely peaking at 7 MVA.
Resident feedback — detailed in the P&Z report and previous coverage by The Sentinel — was largely in opposition to AEP’s proposal. Neighborhood residents and people throughout town argued that the substation, which will emit noise, be lit at all hours and be surrounded by security fencing, will degrade their property values and the general quality of life.
In its report, which was recently approved, P&Z board members revealed that they ultimately agreed with those sentiments, stating that “modern AEP substations are beautifully engineered but visually severe, out of scale with residential neighborhoods and as proposed would permanently detract from Marfa’s small town charm.”
The P&Z report noted that a site diagram presented by Guerrero in public hearings “was not to scale,” failing to represent the potential structure’s true size of 250 by 250 feet and “attempted to minimize the size of the new substation.” Members of P&Z and the public also took issue with the fact that a technical design of the proposed substation was unavailable due to the fact that AEP only embarks on that process after land is acquired.
Notably, the P&Z report warns that the rezone, if approved by City Council, would likely constitute a spot zone, which are generally considered illegal, opening the municipality up to potential litigation. Spot zoning, according to a memo from City Attorney Sylvia Firth included in the report, occurs when “a city changes zoning to allow a use that is incompatible to surrounding uses and does not respect the city’s comprehensive plan.”
In its report, P&Z argued that the industrial rezone is clearly incompatible with the residential neighborhood that has been inhabited since the 1800s and would go against the city’s comprehensive plan adopted in 2017, which prioritizes, among other things, expanding housing options. The rezone would “subtract from existing housing stock” by tearing down an existing adobe home on the property and prevent future housing development on the site, the report states.
“An industrial use for the proposed site specifically contradicts the Future Land-Use Map, which identifies the site and the surrounding properties as areas for future residential development,” the report states.
P&Z commissioners also addressed the main argument made by those in favor of the new substation: reliability of service. Some citizens have expressed concern that “denying the rezone will lead to unreliable or losses in service” that could negatively impact the town, specifically individuals that rely on electricity to power critical medical devices. But, per Guerrero, outages are often the result of issues with the statewide grid rather than local distribution stations and will never fully go away, according to the report. Plus, the report states, AEP will simply have to pursue another property if denied the rezone, not abort its mission.
“By agreement with the state, AEP is responsible for providing Marfa with reliable power. Denying the rezone for this particular property does not untether AEP from this obligation and will not jeopardize access to reliable electricity for the city,” the report states. “It only means that AEP will have to find another site that not only serves its goals, but also those of the broader community.”
While it does not go into detail, the report does mention that alternative sites for the new substation have been presented and are being explored. It was previously reported by The Sentinel that County Commissioner Deirdre Hisler and local realtor Mary Farley worked to locate two viable alternatives, which are both outside of city limits, meet AEP’s minimum acreage requirements and front Highway 90.
The P&Z report will be officially presented to City Council members by Chairman Chick Rabourn on Thursday, at which point council members will discuss next steps, like when to schedule a public hearing. Guerrero told The Sentinel this week that he is planning on attending the July 8 City Council meeting to provide additional information before the council makes its final decision.
The report was sent to The Sentinel Friday afternoon after several requests for the document during the week after P&Z voted to recommend denying the rezone. Interim City Administrator Kelly Perez said there was never an intention to keep it private but that delays in getting the report to city officials and an unfamiliarity of procedural steps for a rezoning case were the cause of the delay.