Aransas Pass council tables request to reinstate manufactured-home rezoning and extend RV-park timeline

The Aransas Pass City Council on May 5 debated whether to reinstate a manufactured-home (MH) district rezoning granted in 2020 for a proposed recreational-vehicle park at the southwest corner of North Commercial and West Guile Avenue, and whether to grant a multi‑year time extension to begin construction.

The proposal would reinstate a rezoning originally approved on April 24, 2020, for a roughly 12.8‑acre parcel and would allow the property owner to develop an RV park (the approved site plan showed 41 units). Proponents asked the council to adopt an ordinance giving the project a fixed time window to start construction — developers initially requested five years — to restore the entitlements and help secure financing.

Why it matters: developers said lenders and equity partners will not commit sizable construction financing unless zoning and permitting entitlements are assured. Opponents and several council members pressed the developers for clearer evidence of financing and faster timelines; neighbors raised traffic and safety concerns about the project site’s approach from the highway.

Tom Furlough, the landowner, and Brent Conlon, a San Antonio‑based developer, told the council they had completed prior steps including replatting, environmental‑sensitive‑area board approval and, in 2022, a building permit and a TxDOT right‑of‑way permit (the transcript records those permits and later indicates the permits have since expired). Conlon said the project is estimated to cost “$5 million to $6 million” and that construction costs and interest‑rate spikes since 2020 forced the team to rework financing. He said the team has invested “well over a million dollars” to date and sought a time-limited reinstatement so they could approach banks and investors with the entitlements in place.

City staff said conditions previously attached to the rezoning required construction to commence within set timeframes and that some of those time limits had lapsed. Staff presented a draft ordinance that would reinstate the MH rezoning for a defined extension period and include conditions: a start‑construction deadline (the council would set the length), nontransferability restrictions limited to the extension period, and reversion to prior zoning if the developer failed to meet the deadline.

Neighbors and at least one longtime resident warned about safety and traffic at the intersection near Haslet and North Commercial, saying the approach from the highway is hazardous and that any additional traffic could worsen the situation. A resident urged the council to study the traffic implications and cited local driving behavior at the intersection.

Council discussion focused on three issues the developers could control: (1) how long an extension should run, (2) whether the city would require periodic progress reports, and (3) what milestone would constitute “start of construction.” Several councilmembers said a shorter extension (three years) with regular updates would be more acceptable than a five‑year period. Developers said they would prefer five years but said they could accept a shorter period if it resolved the entitlement dispute.

Action and outcome: a motion to table the reinstatement/extension — to allow further review and to gather additional information — was made and seconded; the council voted in favor to table the item. The council did not adopt an ordinance reinstating the rezoning or setting an extension at this meeting.

Next steps and context: staff said that, if the council later approves an extension, the developers would still need to reapply for any building permits that have expired and meet current code and the city’s RV‑park design standards; TxDOT and other third‑party permits would still be required. Developers acknowledged those steps and said they would reapply for permits and update plans as needed. The council suggested periodic status updates if the item returns.