Little Elm council approves Ordinance 1802 and development agreement for Oak Grove property amid resident opposition

The Town of Little Elm council voted to approve Ordinance 1802 and then approved a development agreement with the project applicant, Sunal Kumatki, for a property north of U.S. 380 along Oak Grove after a public hearing where multiple nearby residents urged denial.

The ordinance and the development agreement together memorialize project conditions the council required, including single‑story homes along the eastern and southern perimeters abutting existing Hillstone Point residences, a masonry wall along the northern perimeter, tree mitigation requirements and other infrastructure commitments. Councilmembers voted unanimously in favor; the recorded vote at the meeting was four ayes and no opposition.

Why it matters: Neighbors said the 10‑acre proposal would intensify traffic on Oak Grove — which residents and commenters said will not be widened for years — and would remove mature trees that provide a buffer with existing homes. Council members and staff said the conditions in the development agreement were intended to reduce the project’s impacts on adjacent neighborhoods while allowing the landowner to proceed with development.

At the March public hearing, residents described recurring traffic congestion and safety risks on Oak Grove and nearby streets, cited prior incidents that delayed school transportation and asked the council to delay or deny the project until road improvements or additional public safety resources were in place. Several speakers also noted prior planning and zoning votes that left the item tabled. Speakers said they had collected signatures protesting the development; staff reported the formal protest signatures reached about 17 percent of properties within the 200‑foot notice radius, short of the 20 percent threshold for a heightened voting requirement.

Town planning staff summarized the developer’s concessions since the Planning & Zoning discussion: limiting two‑story homes adjacent to existing residences, offering a masonry wall along a property line, preserving and replacing a portion of trees, and taking over maintenance of some existing wooden fences. Staff said the proposal calls for roughly 20 lots with 50‑foot lot widths to match nearby Hillstone Point lots, and that tree mitigation calculations showed approximately 82 trees proposed to be preserved and about 150 new trees to be planted under town regulations; the meeting record noted a net removal number but specified the required replacement plantings under code.

During council deliberations a councilmember noted that if formal protests had reached 20 percent of affected property owners within 200 feet, the ordinance would have required six of seven affirmative votes to pass; staff confirmed the protest level was about 17 percent, so the item required a simple majority. After a revised motion that incorporated the single‑story condition on the specified perimeter zones, the council approved Ordinance 1802 and subsequently approved the development agreement to formalize the conditions.

What the approvals do not resolve: Several residents asked who would fund or accelerate roadway widening projects and whether the town could acquire the land for a park instead. Staff said the parcel is currently owned by a Methodist church entity and that ownership alone does not exempt a private sale or proposed development from zoning review. The council and staff also noted that some aspects of tree preservation on earlier nearby developments were tied to vesting and the property’s status before annexation — factors that limit direct comparison.

Votes at a glance: Ordinance 1802 — motion to approve with conditions (single‑story along specified perimeters, masonry wall, tree mitigation) — outcome: approved (4 ayes, 0 nays); Development agreement with Sunal Kumatki — outcome: approved (4 ayes, 0 nays).

Next steps: Staff said the approved development agreement will be drafted to include the enumerated conditions, caveats and waivers and will be executed to formalize the council’s approvals. The council moved into a scheduled executive session after the votes and returned with no action taken.