The Fulshear Planning and Zoning Commission voted on May 2 to deny a zoning map amendment that would have changed an approximately 45.112-acre tract on McKinnon Road from estate residential to general commercial.

The request, submitted as part of the project called Fulshear Crossing, prompted multiple residents to speak during public comment, who said the change would increase traffic, introduce commercial activity next to homes, and could reduce neighboring property values. Chris Nichols, representing McKinnon interests and speaking for the applicant, told the commission the revised plan removed light industrial zoning and focused the site on general commercial uses, including a proposed senior living facility and recreational amenities.

Why it matters: Commissioners must weigh the city’s comprehensive-plan goals to add commercial rooftops against residents’ concerns about compatibility, traffic, and whether a development agreement would be sufficient to lock in promised uses and buffers.

The proposal and developer response
Chris Nichols of Brady & Hamilton, representing McKinnon interests, said the applicant reworked an earlier proposal that had been denied in November and removed light industrial uses. Nichols said the revised application "consists primarily or actually only of general commercial," and described proposed components including a senior living anchor, retail/entertainment areas, flex office space, a 6.2-acre detention area and a 50-foot landscape buffer along the property edge.

Residents speak against rezoning
Multiple residents who live adjacent to or near the parcel urged the commission to preserve the estate residential zoning. Jeff Roberts, whose property abuts the site, said: "I would ask that you please deny this tract." John Dowdall, who said he was speaking in his personal capacity though he has served on the commission in the past, urged commissioners not to change ordinances for the benefit of a developer: "I respectfully urge the committee. Do not approve this ordinance change. Protect the ordinances. Protect our residents."

City staff and procedural context
City staff explained the request comes amid a long-term city goal—reflected in the comprehensive plan—to add commercial land to serve a growing population. Staff also said the applicant and the city were discussing a possible development agreement that could codify buffers, elevations and other site-specific conditions. Staff cautioned that while a development agreement can define uses, the city cannot force a developer to sign one prior to rezoning; incentives are typically used to encourage agreements.

Commission deliberations and vote
Commissioners and some members of the public repeatedly raised concerns about McKinnon Road’s capacity, the lack of a completed traffic impact analysis at the time of the meeting, and whether the city had an adequate plan for road improvements to handle increased trips. After discussion, a motion to deny the zoning map amendment was made and seconded. The motion carried.

Next steps
Because the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial, the item will not be forwarded to city council with a positive recommendation. Any future application or materially different proposal would start the public-notice process again. The commission and staff indicated that if the applicant returns and a development agreement is negotiated and accepted, that agreement would be the mechanism to restrict specific uses and standards.