Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines planned development that would have cleared hardwood forest near George Bush Hwy
Summary
After extensive public comment and council debate over traffic, lot configuration and the loss of mature trees, Rowlett council voted down a proposed planned development for a 16.6‑acre tract (53 single‑family lots) citing concerns about tree preservation and neighborhood impacts.
The Rowlett City Council voted Sept. 2 to reject a developer’s request to reclassify a 16.607‑acre tract east of George Bush Highway and north of Carol Lane as a Planned Development allowing 53 single‑family lots, following hours of staff presentation, applicant testimony and resident opposition.
Community Development staff described the project as a request to change the comprehensive‑plan designation and to approve deviations from the Rowlett Development Code (block length, alley requirement, right‑of‑way width and front‑entry garages). The applicant proposed a tree‑preservation area, the planting of additional trees and a $250,000 one‑time payment into the city’s tree mitigation fund as part of the mitigation strategy.
Developer John Arnold said the revised plan removed three lots to preserve specimen trees and that the $250,000 payment was calculated as the mitigation value tied to removed lots. "We’re gonna plant trees on the north and south ... and then make a $250,000 payment into that fund," Arnold said during his presentation.
Residents from Mariner Park and Flamingo neighborhoods testified in force. Rod Hayes, a long‑time resident, described the site as an important open space and urged the council to preserve trees and neighborhood character. "This is really an important open space to me and my family," Hayes said. Speakers raised concerns about traffic congestion on the service road, loss of mature hardwood bottomland, and the project’s compatibility with the city’s comprehensive plan.
Several council members also expressed concern about sacrificing mature hardwood forest for a development of this scale. One councilmember said it was a difficult decision but concluded, "I just can't ... sacrifice a hardwood forest for 53 homes." After extended deliberation, a motion to approve the planned development as presented (mover: Mr. Shoop; second: Ms. Bowers) failed by a vote of 6–0.
The developer may return with a redesigned plan or seek a different approval path. For now, the property remains zoned SF‑9 and subject to the city’s existing requirements for tree mitigation and development standards.
