Fulshear council tables Waters PUD rezoning after residents and council raise infrastructure and legal concerns

Fulshear City Council on Jan. 20 tabled a contested zoning package known as the Waters PUD after more than an hour of public comment and extended council questions about where multifamily connections would come from and whether existing development and utility agreements allow multifamily use.

The hearing drew more than 50 sign-ins and dozens of residents who spoke against permitting apartment or other multifamily development along FM 359 and FM 1093. Joshua Brothers, a city planner who presented the PUD history, said the 2016 development agreements and later amendments — including a 2019 amendment — created a matrix of land uses and utility-connection allocations that now leave the city with limited clarity about how service units might be reallocated among five tracts. "We know how many units they would like to move to the 32-acre tract, but we don't know where they're taking those from," Brothers said during the presentation.

Residents and HOA representatives argued the city must honor earlier commitments and warned of legal and infrastructure consequences. Jared Barton read a formal letter from Harry Follett, president of the Fullbrook Homeowners Association, asserting that the 2016 development agreement and subsequent amendments vest single-family uses and cap nontraditional housing at 15 percent. The letter cited Texas vested-rights law and urged the council to deny rezoning or impose strict limits, including a traffic-impact analysis and a 15% cap on nontraditional units. "This rezoning would breach that reliance," the letter said, urging the council to preserve residents' expectations.

Speakers at the council dais repeatedly raised water and drainage concerns. Council members asked staff for clear, tract-by-tract documentation of how many utility connections are currently allocated to each tract and where the developer proposes to move them. One council member said Fulshear has the county's highest subsidence rate and cautioned that increased multifamily density could increase groundwater draw and subsidence risk. Brothers said the utility allocations shown in the agreements have been contemplated in the city's water and wastewater master plans but acknowledged staff and legal review are still working to reconcile exhibits and exhibits' interpretations.

Several residents urged the council to amend or explicitly override past agreements to prohibit multifamily on specified tracts. "If there's a good-faith agreement to not do multifamily, keep it simple: amend the developer agreement," said resident Steve Crow. Other commenters asked the city to require stronger buffering, height limits and phasing requirements in any PUD so future development follows clear density, height and green-space rules.

Council member Kanopy moved and Council member Miller seconded a motion to table the Waters PUD, citing the need for additional information on utility reallocations, traffic and buffering standards and ongoing negotiations with the landowner. The motion carried. Staff and legal counsel were directed to continue negotiations, compile the requested tract-level utility data and return with additional information to a future council meeting or to take the PUD back to the Planning and Zoning Commission as needed.

What happens next: tabling preserves the city's option to seek more concessions or to require additional studies and clarifications before any vote on rezoning. Brothers told council that if the city does nothing and leaves the current agreements in place, the developer could pursue multifamily under existing exhibits so long as they do not exceed utility capacity; Council members said the PUD is the tool that could limit and shape what is allowed.