Tyler planning commission denies rezoning for West Mud Creek subdivision

The Tyler Planning and Zoning Commission on May (date not specified) denied PD 2053, a request from Jennico West Mud Creek LLC to rezone property from R1A (single‑family residential) to PUR (Planned Unit Residential) to allow detached single‑family homes with private streets.

Staff told commissioners the site plan packet presented at the prior meeting did not reflect a revised layout submitted to the city the day before the hearing and that departments had not had adequate time to review the new materials. Staff said the plan before the commission was “generally inconsistent with the approval criteria” and recommended denial. Staff also reported that of nine mailed notices five were returned in opposition, a protest calculation of 21.12 percent; staff said, “as written, protests exceeding 20% … a favorable vote of 3‑fourths majority of city council will be required to approve the request.”

At the hearing, the applicant’s representative, Chris McNerney of the Genicove Group, acknowledged the late submission to the city and asked the commission to table the item so the city could review the new layout. McNerney told the commission the layout shown to them was “about a 50 acre development” reduced to “just under 29 acres” in the new plan and that the applicant planned to request a variance for an extended cul‑de‑sac; he said, “we do acknowledge that we submitted to the city late. And did not give them adequate time to review the bridal layout that we're proposing.”

Neighbors who spoke opposed the rezoning, citing concerns about traffic on Cumberland Road, privacy, density and piecemeal development. Resident Jimmy Nigam urged denial and asked that, if the commission did not deny, any resubmittal be delayed beyond the next cycle; Jim Clark, a homeowner on Cumberland Road, said he preferred one‑acre minimum lots consistent with nearby properties and asked to see the total development rather than a split, phased layout.

A motion to deny PD 2053 was made and seconded. The commission conducted a roll call vote; all commissioners present voted in favor and the application was denied. Commissioners recorded on the roll at the meeting were Carlene Darkbays, Clint Childs, Philip Humber, Christina Davis, Michael Carmichael, Roy Martinez and David Hudson.

Staff clarified process implications: the denial applied to the site plan presented to the commission and staff said the applicant could submit a materially different layout for review without necessarily waiting a six‑month resubmittal period that applies to denials of identical proposals. The staff recommendation, public opposition and the protest threshold mean that if the matter reaches council with written protests above 20 percent, approval at council would require a three‑quarters affirmative vote.

The commission’s denial will be transmitted to City Council; applicants have 10 calendar days after denial to file a written appeal with the planning department for City Council consideration.

Less‑central details from the hearing included the applicant’s note that the proposed cul‑de‑sac length in the new layout is roughly 1,100 linear feet and that other recent developments before the commission have included cul‑de‑sacs of 1,450 and 1,825 linear feet, figures cited by the applicant as context for any variance request.