Waxahachie council approves 3,100-acre planned development after heated Brookside Road hearing

The Waxahachie City Council approved a plan‑development zoning change and related development agreement for a roughly 3,100‑acre project near Brookside Road Wednesday night, despite strong opposition from nearby residents and continued staff bargaining over technical language.

The ordinance, ZDC2322024, permits a new planned development requested by Dennis Church of Mento Communities Texas LLC and adds land owned by Walton Texas LP and United Presbyterian Homes. Staff and the developer described the proposal as a mixed‑product community asking for 13,270 dwelling units, a minimum of 400 acres of open space and multiple neighborhood commercial nodes. City staff emphasized the project includes commitments for road and park infrastructure plus funding toward public‑safety facilities.

Why it matters: The project would significantly expand buildable land on Waxahachie’s north side and — if fully built at the density discussed — could accommodate tens of thousands of residents over the development’s multi‑decade buildout. Council and staff framed the vote as choosing between regulated, developer‑driven infrastructure commitments and leaving the site to piecemeal or county‑level development that could provide fewer protections for existing residents.

Council and staff briefed the public on three of the ordinance’s headline numbers. Trenton, a city staff presenter, told the council: "They are requesting 13,270 dwelling units" and said the plan includes a minimum of 400 acres of open space and an estimated density that varies by product (single‑family around 2.6–3 units per acre, multifamily about 18 units per acre). Trenton also confirmed a proposed MMD cap of $0.72 per $100 valuation for properties in the development.

What residents told council: Dozens of speakers participated in an extended public‑hearing period. Brookside Road neighbors repeatedly warned that the scale and timing of development would strain local roads and drainage and produce nuisance impacts at the existing Brookside entrance. Christopher Barnes, who identified his address as 607 Brookside Road, asked the council bluntly: "what is the hurry?" and urged members to "put yourself on Brookside Road" before approving the request. Kathy Casel, a long‑time Brookside resident, warned about runoff and flooding effects on nearby yards: "It flooded my yard but it almost went to their front porch," she said, speaking about prior storm impacts and concerns about added runoff.

Developer and staff responses: A development representative, Brian Kale, said the district is modeled on state statute for impact‑fee assessment: "the impact fees are assessed at the time of the plat" while collection generally occurs at building permit, and signaled willingness to align the agreement with the city’s current procedures. Trenton and other staff detailed negotiated items the council asked be clarified in ordinance or development agreement language, including anti‑monotony architectural standards, the timing mechanism for converting neighborhood commercial nodes to single‑family housing, and how and when impact fees and MMD credits are applied.

Key commitments and concerns: Council discussion highlighted several written commitments in the draft agreement: the developer agreed to expand Brookside Road to four lanes (including a bridge and multiple signalized intersections), install turn lanes on arterial approaches, provide parkland and specialty parks with lighting and restrooms, and allocate $12.5 million in staged funding for roadway improvements and approximately $13.5 million toward a future public‑safety facility. Staff said some technical items and wording remained unsettled and asked for final language to be confirmed with the city attorney and manager before implementation.

Vote and next step: After a brief recess and further council discussion, a motion to approve the zoning and development agreement — subject to the staff report, agreed clarifying edits and conditions (including annexation timing for ETJ portions) — passed. The council then approved an annexation agreement for about 206.72 acres (Presbyterian Children’s Home and Walton Texas LP) to be annexed by April 6, 2026.

What didn’t change: Several residents warned that if the property were de‑annexed or developed under county MUD rules, the city would lose local control over roads, drainage and some infrastructure. Council members repeatedly acknowledged those risks, and several members said they favored the negotiated, master‑plan approach rather than allowing the site to develop piecemeal without city‑level mitigation. The council’s motion required staff to finalize outstanding verbiage and technical corrections prior to implementation.

Authorities and legal references: Speakers cited the Texas Open Meetings Act (Texas Government Code section 551.042) for rules on public comment; staff and legal counsel referenced provisions of the Texas Local Government Code governing impact‑fee credits (chapter 395) and the collection/assessment mechanics; the draft development agreement also referenced timing and payment mechanisms for interest and reimbursement under state law.

What to watch: The next steps are finalizing the development‑agreement language (impact‑fee credit language, anti‑monotony and timing triggers for neighborhood commercial), formal annexation of the ETJ parcels by April 6, 2026, and subsequent platting and site‑plan approvals that will trigger infrastructure obligations and fee collection. Residents said they will continue to monitor traffic, drainage studies and the placement of commercial nodes adjacent to Brookside Road.