Leander City Council denies Leander Springs PUD amendment after residents, council raise water and environmental concerns

Leander City Council on Aug. 21 unanimously denied an amendment to the Leander Springs planned unit development (PUD) that would have reduced multifamily units and removed phasing deadlines for a mixed‑use project at the southwest corner of U.S. 183A and FM 2243.

The proposal from Fireland Development Group would have amended the 2020 PUD for roughly 77.9 acres to reduce proposed multifamily units from 1,600 to 1,200, change phasing language and keep a 4‑acre public lagoon as the project centerpiece. After a three‑hour-plus presentation and extensive public comment, council members said remaining questions about the lagoon’s water source, subsurface impacts and project financing meant they could not approve the amendment.

The decision matters because the project as proposed would reshape a large gateway site in Leander and is tied to infrastructure, hotel, retail and residential phasing. Opponents said the council must resolve how the lagoon would be filled and sustained, whether groundwater pumping would harm North Brushy Creek and whether the developer’s financing and liens threaten timely completion.

Developer presentation and commitments Andrei Derevenka, principal of Fireland Development Group, told the council the amendment would reduce multifamily from 1,600 to 1,200 units and remove expiration timelines from the PUD phasing plan. He said the lagoon would remain a required project amenity and that “certificate of occupancy may not be issued for any multifamily units until after certificate of completion is issued for the lagoon.” Derevenka said engineering and architecture for phase 1 were complete but that, without the PUD amendment, many permits could not be submitted.

Consultants described the master plan as a mixed‑use, “live, work, play” district anchored by the 4‑acre lagoon, with a promenade, retail, hotels and a park system that would connect into Mason Creek and Brushy Creek trails. Architect Trent Rush of Hitchcock Design Group described the lagoon as a boardwalk‑anchored public space with activity zones and pedestrian promenades.

Water source, treatment and developer financing The development team said the lagoon would be filled and operated from a private well tapping the Lower Trinity Aquifer rather than Leander’s treated city supply. Sam Mudani (EB‑5 financing) and others said EB‑5 and CPACE financing had been pursued; the presentation cited EB‑5 approvals and a CPACE term sheet. Joe Navar, SVP at Water (water treatment technology), said his company’s non‑chemical, low‑energy treatment approach would be used and described the lagoon system as a closed loop not relying on city potable water.

The developer stated that a well on site is roughly 800 feet deep and that evaporation for a 4‑acre lagoon would be roughly 2,700,000 gallons per year, mitigated in their design by technology that they said could cut evaporation by 50–80%.

Public comments and neighborhood concerns Several residents and nearby homeowners urged denial. Clifford Hall, an Overlook Estates homeowner, said the land use on the city’s future land use map envisioned single‑family development adjacent to his neighborhood and asked the council to require a 250‑foot buffer and a two‑story height cap along the shared boundary. Anita Chmnivich, a Ridgemar resident, told council: “How can the city approve a 4 acre lagoon with no clear documentation on where the water will come from?”

Elizabeth Moore, who lives on Brushy Creek, described the creek as an ongoing spring‑fed resource and warned that subsurface pumping and nearby construction “could spell doom” for the stream and the planned North Brushy Creek trail. Denise Lewis, a local well owner, told council she had lowered her household pump to 700 feet and said, based on her conversations with agricultural extension staff, that the Trinity Aquifer in the area had limited remaining life.

Moore also raised a TCEQ filing the developer had made that described daily discharges and suggested downstream water‑rights holders could pose legal risks if streamflow were harmed.

Permits, timeline and economic claims The developer told council it had completed 15 of 26 permits required to start the project, had four permits on hold because of the PUD expiration, and had seven permits ready to submit if the amendment moved forward. Derevenka and his team said a lack of financing, COVID‑era delays, bank pullouts in 2023–24 and rapid interest‑rate increases contributed to the missed PUD deadline and slower schedule. He warned that without the amendment the project could be delayed and that some amenities, including the lagoon and hotels, could be at risk.

Developers presented an economic impact and job creation analysis they said would generate long‑term tax revenue if the full master plan were built. They said hotel interest existed with a brand‑level target of roughly 275 rooms for one full‑service hotel and a smaller 110‑room hotel; the plan also included about 21 acres of parkland and more than 1,000,000 square feet of commercial space in full build‑out.

Council deliberation and action Council members expressed repeated concern that critical technical questions — especially groundwater impacts, the long‑term water supply for the lagoon, and the project’s financial readiness — were not adequately resolved. Several council members also cited a lack of prior, clear community outreach and said they needed more verification of well testing, legal permitting status and financing commitments before approving changes that would remove PUD deadlines.

After discussion, a council member moved to deny the PUD amendment; the motion carried unanimously. The council did not approve the requested removal of phasing expiration dates, and the developer’s proposed reduction in units and other changes therefore were not adopted.

What the vote means and next steps Because the council denied the amendment, the PUD’s prior phasing and expiration conditions remain in force. The developer indicated it will continue to pursue the project in some form, noting land ownership, but warned that some amenities and timelines could change without the PUD changes. Council asked staff and the developer to clarify the status of permits and to provide more documentation about the well tests, water‑treatment plans and funding before any similar amendment returns.

The Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended denial of the amendment earlier in its process. The applicant may elect to revise the PUD or withdraw and resubmit future zoning requests; any such resubmission would return to Planning & Zoning and then to council.

(Quotes selected from the public hearing and council discussion.)

Ending — continuing oversight The Leander Springs site remains privately owned and zoned under the current PUD. Council members said they want staff to compile and share a detailed list of outstanding permits and the developer’s documented hydrology tests and financing commitments before reconsidering related amendments. Neighbors said they will follow future filings and any groundwater monitoring or Texas Commission on Environmental Quality permits closely.