Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents ask Fulshear council to revisit 45‑acre rezoning after P&Z denial
Summary
Dozens of residents urged the Fulshear City Council on June 17 to reverse a recent decision rezoning a 45‑acre tract near Bodark Lane from estate residential to general commercial, citing traffic, process and notice concerns and asking council to initiate a new zoning case.
Dozens of residents asked the Fulshear City Council on June 17 to reopen a zoning decision that changed a 45‑acre tract near McKinnon Road and Bodark Lane from estate residential to general commercial.
Speakers described petitions, traffic worries and what they said was an incomplete public record and asked the council to request a new zoning case so the matter can be reconsidered with a traffic impact analysis and additional public notice.
Why it matters: Residents said the change conflicts with the city’s comprehensive plan and will materially affect traffic and property values for adjacent neighborhoods. Multiple speakers asked council to use its authority to reinitiate the rezoning process so the community can review updated analyses and legal documents.
What residents said: John Dowdall told council that more than 300 residents signed a petition opposing the commercial rezoning and asked council to “pump the brakes” until a traffic impact study (TIA) is completed and recorded easements are produced. Brett Dodd and other speakers said similar jurisdictions require TIAs before rezoning, and that developers had not demonstrated infrastructure or access plans for the site. Several speakers said they had not been informed of or could not find requested easements or recorded plats in county records.
Several speakers said Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) recommended denial on prior hearings and that council’s recent approval seemed to depart from that recommendation. Susan Archer and Karen Thompson said council should hold a second vote now that more information is available and that some votes may have been cast on incomplete data.
Council process and response: During the public hearing on amendments to Articles 2 and 3 of the Coordinated Development Ordinance (CDO), confusion about the hearing’s scope led council to temporarily pause and then reopen the citizens comment period so people who expected to address the rezoning could speak. Council later agreed to delay consideration of an ordinance item regarding the CDO amendments until the July 1 meeting and asked staff and the city attorney to prepare legal briefings to clarify the city’s position on several related issues.
Formal action noted at the meeting: Council voted to reopen citizens comments so those who had signed up expecting to address the rezoning could speak. That procedural motion passed by voice vote. No zoning reversal or new rezoning case was initiated during the June 17 meeting.
What residents asked next: Multiple speakers urged council to direct staff to request initiation of a new zoning case for the tract, including a traffic impact study paid for and provided by the developer, and to ensure all recorded easements and plats referenced by developers are available in county records.
Next steps: Council postponed substantive ordinance action on CDO amendments to the July 1 meeting and said city staff and legal counsel would provide additional analyses. Residents indicated they intend to press for a formal motion at a future meeting to initiate a new zoning case.
Speakers quoted in this article spoke during the public‑comment and public‑hearing portions of the June 17 meeting.
