Bulverde planning commission recommends denial of McCarty Ranch PDD after hours of technical briefings and public comment

The Bulverde Planning & Zoning Commission on Tuesday voted to recommend denial of a proposed Planned Development District known as McCarty Ranch, a large residential proposal near U.S. Highway 281 that would have allowed roughly 230 single‑family lots and numerous modifications to city standards.

The developer asked the commission to approve a PDD that would set a base of R‑2 residential zoning while authorizing broad code modifications on lot dimensions, street geometry, tree mitigation, riparian buffer crossings and steep‑slope disturbance. The applicant also presented engineering studies and a drainage strategy that its consultants said would reduce downstream peak flows and treat runoff.

Why it mattered: residents and some commissioners said the application raised serious unresolved technical and policy questions — chiefly whether the drainage and detention design would actually protect downstream neighborhoods, how many mature trees would be removed and whether the city could enforce developer commitments on water infrastructure and tree preservation.

The applicant repeatedly told the commission it had prepared extra studies beyond what the code required. "We have exceeded, went above and beyond every single requirement," an applicant spokesman said during the presentation. Consultant Alan (engineer) described the drainage approach as a batch detention system sized to capture the first 1.3 inches of rainfall and to reduce peak flows, and said the design would be reviewed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Several residents urged the commission to require additional independent review. Linden Sisk, speaking during public comment, criticized the application paperwork and urged a traffic and drainage analysis before council action: "Not every piece of real estate that can be developed within the city limits of Bulverde should be developed," Sisk said.

Public concerns focused on three technical areas:

- Drainage and flooding: Residents cited recent high flows in nearby tributaries and emphasized that downstream neighborhoods (Johnson Ranch and others) experienced near‑bank flooding this year. Commissioners asked for clearer assurances that off‑site and cumulative flows were fully accounted for and for independent engineering review if the project moves forward.

- Tree removal and mitigation: The applicant presented a sampled tree study covering three sectors and said it would plant roughly 460 replacement trees; it also proposed a cash‑in‑lieu cap of $300,000 for mitigation. Residents and several commissioners questioned the sampling scope and whether the cap would be sufficient to prevent widespread clear‑cutting. "Trees, once destroyed, can only be replaced after generations, if at all," resident Melissa Koski said, urging a full survey and stronger replacement standards.

- Water supply: Speakers noted the area’s regional water constraints and asked what guaranties exist that the project could obtain reliable water service. Commissioners also debated whether a proposed on‑site storage tank or rainwater collection could be required or would fall under the authority of the water provider.

Commission action: After the presentations and more than an hour of public comment, a commissioner moved that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend denial of the PDD to the City Council. A second was made and the motion passed by voice vote. The recommendation to deny now goes to the Bulverde City Council for final consideration; city council retains authority to accept, modify or reject the commission’s recommendation.

What happens next: The commission’s recommendation is advisory; the council may ask for additional studies, revise proposed conditions, or take a different position. The applicant said it had prepared detailed exhibits and is willing to return with revisions, but warned that financing and bank underwriting require clearer parameters on mitigation and grading. The council’s calendar and any requests for additional peer review will determine whether the project returns soon for further review.

— Reporting by the Planning & Zoning hearing record and public comment at the August 5 meeting. The commission’s recommendation now moves to the city council.