Developer outlines 32‑acre multifamily and mixed‑use plan; EDC members press for clearer drainage and infrastructure costs

VCS Capital Group presented a plan for a 32‑acre multifamily and mixed‑use development at the southeast corner of C. B. Stewart Drive and Buffalo Springs Drive, north of Eva Street, drawing detailed technical and fiscal questions from members of the Montgomery Economic Development Corporation.

The developer representative described Class A multifamily residential buildings with associated commercial pads and said the project team had prepared renderings and identified an experienced operator (the transcript reference name was the Mouldy Group). Board members and staff focused most attention on the project’s stormwater plan, roadway and water‑system improvements, and who would pay upfront costs.

MEDC members repeatedly flagged the size of the on‑site detention facility. Developers acknowledged that, in one layout, the site would lose about six acres to detention (reducing developable acreage) and said an updated drainage study could substantially reduce that footprint; they said firm pond sizing and final costs would be available once the drainage plan is complete. Board members said they want to see the drainage plan and updated cost figures before approving any financial assistance.

Council and MEDC members also questioned whether road and water connections proposed as part of the project duplicate work already done for nearby developments. Staff said Home Depot and other nearby sites already connected to the city’s water loop for fire flow; the developer said the project’s water connections were intended to close an existing loop and preserve fire flow for multiple developments. Members discussed a potential public‑private cost‑share for roadway and water improvements and repeatedly asked for a clear breakdown of the “public infrastructure” numbers the developer referenced; the transcript does not specify the dollar total for that line item.

Several participants urged caution about the development’s fiscal terms. One member framed the proposal as the EDC (MEDC) “paying for city infrastructure to support” private development and said a long payback period—participants referenced a 16‑year payback illustration in discussion—would be a concern for the city’s short‑term cash flow and future maintenance obligations. Participants said any EDC tax‑rebate or similar package would need specific legal steps: if MEDC uses a tax rebate or EDC funding mechanism, that participation would be subject to the EDC’s public approval process and could require a public notice period (speakers discussed 30–60 day public processes; the transcript does not provide an authoritative statutory citation for that timeline in this meeting).

EDC members pressed the developer on timing and anchor tenants. The developer said discussions had started with national operators (participants named Texas Roadhouse and an Academy store as nearby/related deals during discussion), and said retailers could be recruited at industry events, but several board members cautioned about the limited local labor force and short‑term fiscal strain of waiving impact fees or fronting large sums for infrastructure.

No final EDC vote on incentives or infrastructure commitments took place during the meeting. Members instead directed the developer to return with: a revised drainage plan showing final pond sizing, a firm breakdown of public infrastructure costs and proposed cost‑share terms, and updated project economics. Board members emphasized they would not sign any agreement until the financial numbers and drainage plan were firmed up.