Kendall County schedules special session after heated debate over development agreement for Spanish Pass property

BOERNE — Commissioners debated a proposed development agreement for a 1.906‑acre property at 12 Spanish Pass Road and agreed to continue discussion at a special session after commissioners and county staff disagreed over detention, setbacks and groundwater conditions.

BVK Properties LLC (owner: Timothy Wheeler) sought a development agreement that would recognize existing nonconforming structures on the site, allow reduced side and rear setbacks, permit a limited amount of existing impervious cover and preserve an existing on‑site well for specified uses during a transition. Wheeler told the court the agreement would help “put a property to better use that will help both the county and the property owners.”

County staff and the court pressed for a clearer plan to address stormwater detention and downstream impacts. County Engineer Mary Ellen Shuey and consultants said the site has limited elevation change and a low point that holds water; they recommended a short‑term “temporary detention” or outfall be installed immediately while a full detention design is prepared. Engineering consultant James Magar told the court a contractor could mobilize and complete a temporary outfall in about “five to seven days” if crews were available.

Commissioners raised several unresolved items in the draft agreement, including: - How the property’s existing impervious cover would be handled and whether the proposed build‑out would increase runoff compared with current conditions. - The need for a firm mechanism and timetable to provide detention or equivalent stormwater treatment given the site’s existing drainage constraints. - Whether the county could or should allow continuing use of an existing well for limited purposes and the timeline for any transition to rainwater catchment. - Reduced setbacks and how replacement of existing structures would be handled if buildings are removed in the future; fire‑marshal requirements for exterior construction when buildings are closer to property lines.

Unable to resolve those items on the record, commissioners set a special meeting for Tuesday, March 4 at 1:00 p.m. to continue negotiations and asked county engineering to run downstream impact analyses that compare current conditions to the proposed site plan and quantify any increase in runoff.

Why it matters: Commissioners and engineers said the county’s goal is to allow redevelopment that creates tax base and economic activity while protecting downstream neighbors and county rights‑of‑way from increased runoff. Several commissioners said they supported the development agreement concept in principle, but needed concrete engineering remedies and enforceable milestones before approving an agreement.

What’s next: County engineers will run hydrologic comparisons of existing versus proposed conditions and present results at the March 4 special meeting. The court also asked staff to prepare a draft development‑agreement template and a milestone enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance if an agreement is approved.

Quotes (selected): Owner Timothy Wheeler told the court, “I believe it's a great example of how the county can work with small businesses to navigate the engineering process,” while engineer James Magar said of a short‑term fix, “If you had a mobilization today, they should have it completed within five to seven days.”

Ending: The court did not approve the proposed development agreement on Feb. 25; it set a special meeting March 4 to allow engineers and the owner to provide additional technical analyses and to negotiate enforceable milestones.