FULSHEAR, Texas (Covering Katy News) — After weeks of debate and strong opposition from nearby residents, the Fulshear City Council voted 6-0 on July 21 to approve an amended plat for Belmont Estates, concluding the city's development ordinance does not clearly prohibit detention ponds and drainage easements from counting toward the required two-acre minimum lot size. Council Member Abhi Utturkar abstained.
The vote followed more than an hour of discussion over whether homeowners should be able to count land occupied by drainage easements and detention ponds toward the city's two-acre minimum lot requirement. Council members ultimately determined the city's ordinance, as currently written, does not clearly prohibit the practice.
Before discussion began, Mayor Don McCoy reminded those in attendance that the council's responsibility was to follow the law.
"Our responsibility is to follow the law, respect the process, and make the decision that we believe is in the best interest for the City of Fulshear," McCoy said.
Why the proposal drew opposition
Belmont Estates is planned along Bois D'Arc Lane in one of Fulshear's estate residential districts, where zoning requires minimum two-acre lots.
The amended plat includes drainage easements containing detention ponds on several lots. Although each lot still totals at least two acres, opponents argued that portions of the property would be unavailable for normal residential use, leaving homeowners with less usable land than they expected.
Earlier this month, the Fulshear Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously recommended denying the amended plat, citing concerns that the proposal conflicted with the intent of the city's estate residential zoning district. Commissioners also noted that contour lines were missing from the original application, although those engineering documents were submitted before the proposal reached the City Council.
Residents urged council to preserve the intent of the ordinance
During public comments, several speakers urged the council to reject the plat and instead amend the city's development ordinance.
Bill Clifford, a member of the Fulshear Planning & Zoning Commission who spoke during public comments, said the revised drainage plan had already been approved by Fort Bend County and acknowledged the legal position facing the council.
"The revised drainage plan for Belmont Estates has been approved by Fort Bend County, and the City Council will thus probably be required to approve this replat," Clifford said.
John Dowdall, another member of the Planning & Zoning Commission who also spoke during public comments, argued the proposal exposed a weakness in the city's ordinance.
"Obviously there's a loophole in our estate residential ordinance. It does not say it has to be usable land," Dowdall said.
Council focused on what the ordinance actually says
Rather than debating whether the subdivision was desirable, council members focused on whether the city's Code of Development Ordinances actually prohibited the proposed design.
Planning Director Josh Brothers told the council that while the ordinance requires two-acre lots, it never defines whether that means gross acreage or usable acreage. It also does not address whether drainage easements should be excluded when calculating a lot's size.
"It's not a matter of us not knowing. It's a matter of us not even contemplating which one it is," Brothers said.
Throughout the discussion, Utturkar questioned whether land occupied by detention facilities should count toward the city's minimum lot requirement and whether approving the plat could create a precedent for future developments. City staff responded that the ordinance contains no language excluding drainage easements or detention facilities from a property's legal acreage.
Decision highlights need for ordinance review
The council's action does not change Fulshear's requirement for two-acre lots. Instead, it highlights that the city's ordinance does not clearly define whether land occupied by shared drainage facilities may be counted when calculating the minimum lot size.
The amended plat was approved on a 6-0 vote, with Utturkar abstaining after raising repeated questions about how the ordinance should be interpreted.
Several speakers urged the city to amend the ordinance before another subdivision proposal raises the same issue, and council members acknowledged during the discussion that the Belmont Estates case exposed an area of the ordinance that may need to be clarified.
About Us: Covering Katy News is independently owned and supported by readers—not government funding or government advertising. If you value in-depth local journalism that explains how decisions at City Hall affect your family and community, please consider becoming a subscriber. Your support keeps independent local journalism strong. Long Live Local News! SUBSCRIBE HERE