Fulshear council narrowly approves rezoning of 45-acre McKinnon site and companion development agreement after heated public hearing

Fulshear — The Fulshear City Council voted 4–3 on May 20 to rezone a 45.112-acre tract on McKinnon Road from Estate Residential (ER) to General Commercial (GC) and to approve a companion development agreement that narrows some allowable uses, requires a 50-foot landscape buffer with berm and trees, and offers a 4.8-acre restricted reserve to the city as part of the project.

Residents who live near the site urged the council to deny the rezoning, citing the city’s comprehensive plan, traffic impacts on BoD'Arc and FM 1093, and possible loss of property value. Developer representatives and city staff said the plan had been revised to remove industrial uses, add an assisted-living facility and recreational uses, and include stronger buffering and traffic study requirements.

The rezoning application covers a 45.112-acre parcel on McKinnon Road (described in public materials as the East Latham Tract 10 and 15, Fort Bend County). The developer’s revised site plan removes prior industrial uses, adds an assisted-senior-living center, indoor/outdoor recreational uses (tennis/pickleball), and a 50-foot landscaped buffer along residential edges. The applicant also offered a 4.8-acre restricted reserve that the city may acquire by separate agreement for a public use such as a public works yard or park.

Why it matters: The property lies near existing commercial and industrial uses and is adjacent to public storage and other commercial parcels to the north, but it also borders longtime residential properties on BoD'Arc and private lots that residents say were purchased based on an expectation of estate-residential zoning. The council’s decision changes development potential for that corridor and is part of a broader city debate about how to expand the tax base without eroding small-town character.

What residents said: Dozens of neighbors and community members spoke during the public hearing. Common concerns included increased traffic at the Bodark/McKinnon intersection, the adequacy of McKinnon Road to handle added trips, the potential for commercial lighting and noise, and loss of property enjoyment and value. John Dowdall (resident, former Planning & Zoning member) and others argued the developer purchased the land knowing its zoning and that changing it would violate the spirit of city ordinances and the comprehensive plan.

What the developer and staff said: Chris Nichols, attorney for McKinnon Interests, told the council the applicant substantially revised its original plan after feedback: industrial uses were removed, buffers increased to 50 feet with berms and planted, and the plan now includes uses (assisted living, recreation, retail) the developer said would be compatible and would generate sales tax revenue. City planning staff said a traffic-impact analysis (TIA) will be required at plat/plan stage and noted the developer had talked with neighboring landowners and county/Hines representatives about extending McKinnon to connect with the Texas Heritage Parkway (a connection the staff said would reduce pressure on BoD'Arc).

Council debate and vote: Council discussion ranged from concern about setting rezoning precedents to fiscal arguments about the city’s reliance on residential valuation for much of its tax base. Avi Powers, who moved the motion to approve, described the need to diversify the tax base; opponents warned of a ‘‘slippery slope’’ if estate-residential land is rezoned. The motion to rezone carried on a 4–3 vote. The companion development agreement — which contains specific limits on some uses, binding landscape and buffering commitments, and a three-year “build/entitlement” window for the developer — was approved in a separate vote.

Actions taken: The council approved the zoning map amendment (ER → GC) for the 45.112-acre McKinnon tract and approved a development agreement with the applicant. The rezoning motion was moved by Council Member Avi Powers and seconded by Council Member Barron; the council recorded a 4–3 outcome. The development agreement was presented and approved in a separate action immediately after the rezoning vote.

Follow-up and implementation notes: Staff and the developer said the site will require a TIA and other engineering (drainage, Atlas 14 compliance) before any construction permits are issued. The developer’s offer of a restricted reserve (4.8 acres) would require a separate purchase or credit agreement if the city elects to acquire it. City staff emphasized code-enforcement and the development agreement as mechanisms to hold the project to the commitments listed in the developer’s exhibits.

Legal and planning context: The discussion centered on the City of Fulshear’s Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Coordinated Development Ordinance (CDO). Staff and the developer repeatedly referenced the CDO and the council’s authority to amend zoning, and staff noted that—under the CDO—specific use limitations could be implemented via a development agreement if the council approves.

Where decisions were documented in the meeting: The rezoning was introduced during the public hearing on the McKinnon parcel and concluded with the council’s vote at the end of the meeting. Staff and the applicant will return with platting, engineering, and a traffic-impact analysis as the project moves toward permitting.

Ending: Council members who opposed the rezoning said they remain concerned about traffic and the cumulative effect of commercial rezonings along BoD'Arc; supporters said the deal balances new tax base opportunities with required buffers and development commitments. The developer and staff said work on engineering, TIA and utility extensions will follow the council’s decisions.