NOTE:  Hyperlinks in this color.  We have attempted to upload original formatting when the text size and clarity allows it.  We provide a limited number of external links; those websites may not remain active.

 

This website was created to provide historical data and chronology regarding events affecting the nature of growth in Flower Mound.  DISCLAIMER:  Information for this site has been provided by long-time residents and former local officials and various publications.  Permission was granted to use some information from the website owned by the original  Voters United to Preserve Flower Mound political action committee (1996-2008).  The term "original" is used because there were two different opposition groups who capitalized upon that name in order to mislead voters since so many residents supported the goals of Voters United.  

 

   ********************

WEBSITE INTRODUCTORY SUMMARY

          Voters United to Preserve Flower Mound (1996-2009) was formed by homeowners to counter the clout of the development industry.  Its founder, Lori DeLuca was eventually elected as mayor (1998-2004) along with a like-minded majority council, which resulted in the Town's most popular ordinances to date - bringing Flower Mound to positive national attention. 

          The development industry was outraged by the election of community advocates and relied upon their local, state and national alliances to help defeat managed growth policies and the candidates supporting them.  This included funding local tabloids and attempting numerous failed lawsuits against the Town and community advocates unaffiliated with land or development interests.  Today, industry utilizes several approaches to overpower the community and silence free speech opposed to projects that reject community vision or negatively impact existing neighborhoods:  "SLAPP" lawsuits; "Cease and Desist Orders".  (For more information about how special interests influence Master Plans see Better, not Bigger)

         Initial development interest sought to develop Flower Mound as a HUD experiment in the 1970's,   

(see TX History: FM)  but funding failed.  In the 1980's councils begin planning for the long term vision:  economic development while preserving our natural heritage.  However, one landowner and a town councilman manually redrew a part of the 1981 Wallace, Roberts and Todd Master Plan which resulted in Wellington - a huge high density project in the middle of town.  

         In 1994 a new Master Plan was approved to help preserve the community through buildout.  However, 14 Master Plan amendments were requested in 1995, and 11 were approved.  (see Voters United to Preserve Flower Mound) As Wellington grew along with the rest of the Town at a rapid pace and because of the high number of amendments, Flower Mound began its infrastructure crisis and residents demanded that a truly long term approach to growth management that preserved community character and quality of life be developed and maintained.           

         Cities and towns are not required by law to have Master Plans; but those who value unique natural assets and a high quality of life find community-driven, long-term vision Master Plans invaluable.  The Texas Attorney General has ruled in favor of a community's right to have a Master Plan, SMARTGrowth, and short term moratoriums.   Master Plans can only be effective with an active citizenry and local officials who share the community's values.  A community with 40% of its land remaining undeveloped attracts a large number of competing development interests, each seeking their own desires.

          In 1998, activist Lori DeLuca was elected mayor as the infrastructure crises neared its peak; instituted a Moratorium on residential density permits (commercial permits and overall growth and construction continued), and studied a long term approach which resulted in the SMARTGrowth Plan, Open Space Plan, and Master Plan 2001. A heavily incentivized option was added to for the smaller, 1 acre conservation lots in the Cross Timbers mandating 50% natural open space. $23MM of taxpayer funds were used to attract commercial development in Lakeside Business; along with an 380 developer agreement ensuring that the landowners would fully repay the $23MM if commercial business was not attracted.  The terror attacks on 9-11-2001 put on hold commercial investment this area.  A Drilling Ordinance was approved in 2003.  In 2004 CNN/Money Magazine selected Flower Mound as the Best Place to Live in Texas and Second Best in the Western USA  (an achievement that has not been repeated). The DeLuca administration ended in May 2004.

          By 2004, (Smith Administration) candidates for local office truly opposed to the Master Plan or SMARTGrowth stopped revealing that they were opposed, as past history indicated that the public would not support such candidacies, as these policies continue to be voter mandates.  (Special interest candidates often co-opt the platforms of pro-managed growth candidates because they resonate so well with the public.)  The same year, a "quiet administrative change" was made to allow drilling in the Cross Timbers.  This was not discovered until a gas well appeared.  No one took responsibility.

          In 2005 a one year resident was elected to Town Council.  The Town Manager, and Economic Development Manager (who was also an Environmental Attorney who helped write the Drilling Ordinance) were fired.  That new council member was an attorney for a major landowner in the Cross Timbers who unsuccessfully tried to sue the Town over the Master Plan.  The council member also served elsewhere on a water utility district.  The same year he became Chair of the newly formed Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ). That year a stakeholder group of drilling industry and major landowners was formed to reduce restrictions on the drilling ordinance.  After leaving office, he acted as a consultant for drilling interests in Flower Mound.

          By 2006 major changes continued (Smith Administration). Condos were allowed in the Lakeside Business District, where $23MM of taxpayer funds were used to attract commercial development.  

          In 2012 (Hayden Administration) fired the Town Manager, Town Attorney, removed SMARTGrowth from Lakeside Business District, and began turning Lakeside Business District into a high density residential area.  

********************

          THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE 1994 AND 2001 AND 2006 MASTER PLANS  BEGAN TO CHANGE 

TO QUICKLY ACCOMMODATE SPECIAL INTERESTS, WITHOUT A COMMUNITY DESIRE TO DO SO.  CHANGES WERE ADMINISTRATIVELY DRIVEN, RATHER THAN COMMUNITY-DRIVEN.

EACH CHANGE FURTHER DISENFRANCHISED COMMUNITY RESIDENTS BECAUSE

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS WERE LOWERED AND SO WERE THE CONCEPTS THAT CAME FORWARD.

********************

 

          In May 2013 the incumbents had no challengers so the election was cancelled.  

          In Summer 2013 Town Council admitted it would update the Master Plan according to the wishes of Special interests (an outright of administratively driven rather than the traditional community-driven approach).   This included:  allowing 1/2 acre, non conservation lots in the Cross Timbers, removing the designation of "Conservation Development District" and forcing municipal sewer into the area.  

          As in the 1981,1994 Master Plan, and the 2001 Master Plan, it was emphasized that development which ignores the natural slopes toward Lake Grapevine and impacts to floodplain areas are compounding old problems and creating new ones at great expense to the community. The only requirement of the Town is that new development not worsen existing problems; however, the rationale or success of that approach is has been the topic of much debate when looking at actual conditions. 

          As of May 15, 2014 (Hayden Administration), changes continue regarding definitions, ordinances and procedures, as well as increased amendments and waivers to SMARTGrowth and the Master Plan at the request of the development community.  (See 2015 P&Z Density Debate)  

         Many new residents move into the area without knowledge of past history, voter apathy grew and thus councils began to seek a different direction for the community through Master Plan amendments and empowering land, development and drilling industry in policy writing.  

          In 2014-2015 the community rallied around the Rippy Road residents as they sought fair treatment in during the public debate of Highland Court, a major Master Plan Amendment that converted commercial property into medium and high density residential.  It was a proposal by a highly favored development interest, Director Development. The developer disparaged the Rippy Road residents in public meetings and in a local circular.  He also met with smaller groups or residents in order to break apart the neighborhood coalition.  The Town Council passed the proposal and subsequently some who broke from the coalition later said they were mislead by the developer.  The developer was represented by a former Town Council woman who represents many entities before the council.

          In 2015, the community also rallied around a long time resident when the town quietly tried to seize her property in an eminent domain attempt to benefit a business entity (a mis-use of Eminent Domain in Texas).  She became a Mayoral candidate in 2016.  Although the Town Manager called the residents and her supporters liars, it was eventually shown that she had been mistreated and mischaracterized - like the Rippy Road residents.  Without support of the residents and news media coverage, the seizure may very well have been successful.

          In May, 2015 three new council members outside the traditional Flower Mound political sphere were elected with campaigns focusing on restoring the community long-term vision mandated for decades, and improving civility within council chambers.  

         There was a backlash by the land and development community to the election results:  

          1.  Initially, a recall effort was threatened should a new majority be elected.  

          2.  Instead, a private facebook group of 51 private citizens who had supported the new council was hacked by development interests, and their names and private comments were theatrically read into public record and without evidence, in an attempt to accuse them of some type of criminal behavior.  Many of those in the group were community advocates and potential council candidates.  The facebook group discussion was regarding a multi-term incumbent council member's ties to development, and a possible political challenger to his 2016 re-election campaign.  That council person continued to use the false allegations against these community advocates the following year.

          3.  One newly appointed Planning and Zoning Commissioner was removed (a potential challenger to an incumbent for 2016); another continues to be targeted - both were appointed by the new council members. 

          4.  One of the 3 new council members quickly betrayed his campaign team upon assuming office and joined long term incumbents.

          5.  A second of the 3 new council members was falsely accused of ethics violations and harassed so frequently he developed heart problems and resigned.

          6.  The remaining new council member was also falsely accused of ethics violations.  The long term incumbents, (and new council person who flipped) approved spending $50K of taxpayer funds (in spite of resident opposition) to an investigator friendly with the administration.  Eventually the Town Attorney found no evidence wrongdoing and did not support the long-term incumbents' sending the investigation to higher authorities, but they forwarded it anyway.  

The resident who claimed to have proof of a violation was a former supporter of the councilman, who became adversarial when that councilman's veterinarian wife refused to provided an illegal canine prescription for steroids for that resident's personal use.  The biased investigator chosen by the majority seeking to remove the council member dismissed this evidence.  The resident in question had his own development proposal before the town, which was ultimately approved.

 

          Many residents stated this aggressive approach toward removing a council person was done in order to ensure that the targeted new councilman not be re-elected.

          Before resigning his office the second targeted new councilman stated that "some in this community are unable to accept the election results".  

          In 2016 more new faces not affiliated with special interests filed for Mayor and Town Council:  Longtime resident Janvier Scott Werner; Cathy Strathmann and Jim Engel.  Development interests backed the incumbents Tom Hayden and Bryan Webb, and newcomer Jason Webb.

          A month later, a special purpose PAC of homeowners without development or other interests, pooled their resources, and mailed a flyer contrasting those candidates with those backed by development interests.  But ultimately all three candidates backed by development interests won:  Tom Hayden, Bryan Webb, and Jason Webb.  

          In 2017 candidates supported by the land and development candidates run for three council positions, including two incumbents and one who had served on P&Z:  Kevin Bryant, Jason Webb and Claudio Forrest. The challengers included another run by a non-developer candidate who lost in 2016 (Cathy Strathmann), an incumbent not part of the majority council voting block (Itamar Gelbman), and one who had served on P&Z (Sandeep Sharma) but who was removed by majority council because of his opposition votes to major Master Plan Amendments due to opposition by neighborhoods who were negatively impacted by them.