Argyle Town Council held a special meeting Oct. 14 that opened with public comment on a proposed development variously described in the meeting as the Marsden Tract and the Morrison Tract, home to the proposed “Argyle Marketplace” project, and then moved into a closed executive session for legal and economic-development advice. No votes were taken at the special meeting; the council reiterated that the formal public hearing and vote on the site plan are scheduled for Oct. 20 at 5:30 p.m.

Why it matters: The project, which commenters said would sit on a roughly 2-acre parcel just south of Little Joe’s Farmstead and adjacent to Argyle Christian Academy, drew sustained public opposition at the special meeting over building size, requests for multiple variances, proposed public incentives, tree loss and potential safety impacts from a proposed emergency/road connection. The comments and the council’s legal briefing leave the final decision pending at the Oct. 20 meeting.

Mayor (unnamed) opened the meeting by describing the development review sequence: the Municipal Development District (MDD) reviewed the project’s economic aspects and recommended it to council with conditions, and the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) reviewed site-plan elements. The mayor told attendees the P&Z meeting on Oct. 1 produced a unanimous decision regarding the site plan and said the council’s Oct. 20 meeting is the posted date for the public hearing and potential council vote.

Speakers during the public-comment period urged the council to reject or significantly reduce the project’s scale. Brian Garson, a resident who said his son attends Argyle Christian Academy, asked the council to avoid routing a new road close to the academy’s drop-off zone and to preserve the safety and character of Little Joe’s Farmstead. “The proposed road will negatively impact my son’s attendance at ACA if it can stay open,” Garson said, adding that drop-off safety and the large oak tree used by children could be endangered if a new road is built.

Rick Bradford, a former Argyle mayor, former council member and former P&Z member, criticized the project’s scale and the number of variance requests and public incentives. Bradford said the main proposed building is about 13,600 square feet, two rear buildings are roughly 5,000 square feet each, and that those figures total more than 23,500 square feet on a parcel he said is about the same size as neighboring properties. He also said the development proposal includes 93 parking spaces compared with 118 that would otherwise be required, and that the Municipal Development District approved up to $300,000 in public funding in early September. Bradford said the developer is reportedly seeking to waive permit fees that he estimated could total about $150,000.

Bradford raised concerns that two of the rear buildings were sized just under 5,000 square feet to avoid required sprinkler systems and said the Denton County Emergency District had recommended sprinklers for all three buildings even if code does not require them. He also questioned the tree mitigation numbers in the staff report versus the developer documents, saying the staff report listed 132 caliper inches to mitigate, the developer’s chart listed 142 inches, and his own tally came to 166 caliper inches including three large oaks he estimated at 100–120 years old.

Other residents echoed concerns about variances, loss of small-town character and fairness to earlier businesses that complied with development standards. Shana Pippels and Joanne Dela Shaw said Little Joe’s Farmstead is a community anchor and that past variances have shaped the town; Dela Shaw referenced a 2023 town ordinance (No. 2023-326) that she said included a cross-access agreement for the property. Some speakers urged greater community engagement through Argyle’s PACE (Argyle Citizen Engagement) process before finalizing the plan.

Council procedure and next steps: The mayor explained that the special meeting was convened to receive legal advice and that the council would not vote at the session. After public comment the council convened an executive session pursuant to Section 551.072 (deliberation on real property) and Section 551.087 (economic development negotiations). The council returned from executive session at 7:34 p.m. and announced that no action was taken.

Items raised for the Oct. 20 hearing include site-plan approval, requested variances, any public-funding commitments or permit-fee waivers, tree mitigation, building size and parking, and whether a gated or restricted fire/EMS access could address safety and cut-through concerns raised by residents. Council members and staff told the audience that comments made at the Oct. 14 meeting will be part of the public record for the Oct. 20 hearing.

Ending: With formal deliberations and any vote deferred to the Oct. 20 council meeting, residents and council members were left with outstanding questions about the scale of the project, requested variances, public incentives and pedestrian and vehicle safety. The council advised attendees to use the town’s public-comment procedures at the Oct. 20 meeting for further testimony and said staff would follow up on questions raised during the special meeting.