Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denying rezoning of Mockingbird Place Unit 2

White House, Texas — The City of White House Planning and Zoning Commission voted Sept. 16 to deny recommending a developer’s request to rezone about 30.16 acres in Mockingbird Place Unit 2 from residential low density to residential medium density.

The commission’s action follows a public hearing in which more than a dozen residents urged commissioners to reject the rezoning, citing concerns about increased traffic on neighborhood streets, drainage and stormwater impacts, and the influence of the property owner over a homeowners’/property owners’ association.

The rezoning request, submitted on behalf of the developer identified in the hearing as Geneco (referred to in the record also as Genicoff/Genicove/GENCODE), covered Lots 14 through 44 and Track 4 within Unit 2. Planning staff told the commission that notices were mailed and posted “in accordance with state law and city ordinances.” Following the hearing, a motion to deny the commission’s recommendation to approve the rezoning was made and seconded; the motion to deny carried.

Residents who spoke described Mockingbird Place as a close-knit neighborhood and said the proposed change would increase traffic through Red Wing Lane and other streets not designed for higher volumes. Sarah Hartman, a Mockingbird Place resident, told the commission, “We’ve lived there a little over a year and absolutely love the neighborhood,” and asked commissioners to “uphold the low density zoning that defines Mockingbird Place.” Julie Fowler, a neighboring homeowner, said, “Just because I didn’t receive a notice … does not mean this rezoning won’t impact my family.”

Speakers also raised drainage and stormwater questions for homes adjacent to the proposed area. Scott Fields said runoff currently flows behind his property and asked, “How are they gonna do the drain for that neighborhood?” Multiple residents said they had not seen a topographic or stormwater plan tied to the rezoning request and worried about flood risk to existing homes.

Ben Real, identified in the hearing as a residential project manager for the developer, said the new submittal reduces the proposed units from an earlier 176 to 151 and reduces the rezoned area from more than 40 acres to about 30 acres. “We’re trying to listen to the community, trying to do what we can to make it profitable, yet listen to the community and do what’s best for the community,” Real said. He said build-out of the area would spread over several years and included a phased plan; he also said the developer does not yet control all adjoining parcels.

Multiple residents also described concerns about the neighborhood’s POA/HOA governance, saying builder-controlled voting at formation gives the developer continuing control over covenants until lots are sold. Vanessa Katania said the POA was established as part of the original land purchase and that developer-appointed representatives held the majority vote at formation.

Planning staff told the commission the updated site plan provides additional context but that the RM zoning request is not tied to a specific planned development, meaning rezoning would change allowed uses under the city’s RM zoning standards rather than approve a single binding layout.

After discussion and public comment, a motion to deny the commission’s recommendation to approve the rezoning carried. Staff said the denial would not automatically go before city council unless the developer filed a timely appeal; staff also said they would notify speakers by email if an appeal were filed.

Discussion points recorded at the hearing included traffic capacity on Hagan Road and internal subdivision streets, drainage/stormwater management and lack of a topographic plan in the submittal, developer control of the POA/HOA and deed restrictions, and housing-market arguments advanced by the applicant about product diversity and economics.

The commission’s action does not itself change the property’s zoning; instead it denies a positive recommendation to the council. Planning staff said a developer appeal must be filed in writing by the developer within the city’s appeal deadline for the item to be heard by the City Council.