Fulshear council delays action after residents press against apartments planned at Del Webb entrance
Loading...
Summary
Residents pressed city council to block multifamily housing near Del Webb; staff briefed council on 2016 and 2019 development agreements that label specific tracts as commercial/multifamily. Council moved to postpone consideration while staff and legal counsel continue research; no ordinance action was taken at the meeting.
Dozens of Fulshear residents urged the City Council on July 1, 2025, to block proposed multifamily housing near the Del Webb community and to keep the land designated for commercial use.
The concern centered on tracts identified in a 2016 development agreement and a 2019 amendment that the city staff said are labeled “commercial/multifamily.” Residents near the entrance to the Del Webb subdivision said they bought homes expecting a commercial buffer and worry apartments would increase traffic, reduce privacy and lower property values.
The matter drew staff presentations and legal review because the properties were annexed after agreements were signed in 2016 and amended in 2019. City staff advised council to delay action and continue reviewing the original documents and any legal obligations tied to the agreements.
“My wife and I moved here in January 2024 because when we came here, we thought it was gonna be a quiet community,” resident David Pearson told the council. “...I'm hoping you don't put a lot of apartments… traffic's getting bad.” Several other residents – including Susan Gray, Loretta Farkas, Cecile Thompson and Lovey “Kimette” Hillary – made similar statements during the public-comment period about traffic, privacy and the expectations set when they purchased homes.
City staff summarized the chain of events: in 2016 the city, Forrester Equine and other entities associated with the landowner identified certain tracts as commercial/multifamily in a development agreement; in 2019 an amendment added another tract (about 35 acres near the 1093 entrance to Polo Ranch) under the same agreement. Staff said the landowner requested zoning into general commercial at the time of annexation; the tracts were in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) in 2016 and later annexed into the city.
Officials said the council’s options are constrained by what the agreements require at present. Special counsel and planning staff told the council they needed more time to research the original agreements and any contractual obligations before taking final action.
Council moved the item into executive session to consult with legal counsel and then returned to open session with no action taken immediately after the closed-door review. Later in the meeting the council formally postponed consideration of item b (approval of ordinance 2025-1495) to allow further legal review and to make the staff presentation publicly available online.
The postponement vote followed a motion to postpone the ordinance; the presentation and the development agreements will be posted to the city website and are available via open-records request, staff said.
The council did not adopt or deny any zoning or ordinance change on July 1; members repeatedly told residents they would continue legal and staff review before taking a final vote.
