Hunt County disapproves preliminary plat for Red Hawk subdivision after concerns about fire, roads and lot sizes

HUNT COUNTY, Texas — The Hunt County Commissioner—s Court on Sept. 17 approved the county engineer—s apportionment of infrastructure costs for the proposed Red Hawk subdivision and directed staff to provide information to the developer to comply with Texas Local Government Code Chapter 232, then voted to disapprove the subdivision—s preliminary plat and deny requested variances.

The decision affects a proposed development the county staff described as about 144 acres with more than 900 planned houses in Precinct 2 near the county line north of Buc-ee—s. Developer representatives with JBI Partners described the project as being outside the Royse City extraterritorial jurisdiction and located in Hunt County MUD 4; they said Josephine would be the water provider and that discussions were underway about sewer service and a wastewater treatment plant site.

Why it matters: The court—s split action leaves the developer responsible for meeting county requirements for apportioning road and drainage costs while denying the preliminary plat and variances the developer sought. Commissioners and others raised repeated concerns about emergency response capacity, local road impacts and substantially narrower lot frontages than county standards, all of which county officials said must be resolved before moving forward.

Developer presentation and county engineering Alex Raycheck, representing JBI Partners, told the court the plat places the development outside Royse City—s ETJ and inside Hunt County, and that the project would be served by Hunt County MUD 4. "Here in front of you is the Redhawk preliminary plat. We are outside of the Royse City ETJ," Raycheck said. He said Josephine would provide water and that the developer was discussing sewer with Josephine and had identified a potential wastewater treatment plant site.

County staff said the court needs to decide whether to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions the preliminary plat and to set apportionment of county infrastructure costs for roads and drainage. The county engineer, Vance Lyles, prepared an apportionment proposal that the court approved.

Emergency response and fire protection concerns Multiple speakers raised concerns about firefighting capacity for a subdivision of this size. The record includes a written letter from the Caddo Mills Fire Department saying it will serve the property, and developer representatives said they had met with the department; Josh Luke of JBI said, "we have met with them, and they have said, yes. We are good to serve this." The court heard, however, that Caddo Mills is a volunteer department and that volunteers and existing equipment may be insufficient for a dense, large subdivision without additional investment.

County participants cited the department—s limited staffing and apparatus and questioned whether volunteer crews could reliably respond to major fires in a subdivision with closely spaced houses. The record shows the county provides monthly funding to the department (speakers referenced approximately $5,200 per month) but court members said that recurring volunteer staffing and equipment shortfalls would need to be addressed if the development proceeds.

Roads, traffic and right-of-way The developers said they would dedicate and build County Road 2656 as part of the project and estimated the primary entrance would route traffic to State Highway 66. The developer stated there would be no connection to County Road 2664 but that right-of-way for that road would be dedicated. County speakers said the development—s size would likely increase traffic on adjacent rural roads and could lead residents to use shorter local routes, potentially creating bottlenecks at SH 66 during peak times.

Lot sizes and variances County standards discussed in the hearing require 80-foot lot frontages on existing roads; the developer requested reduced frontages as small as 30 feet on proposed internal roads. A county official on the record noted that the county can set reasonable standards for lot frontage on existing roads but has less control over proposed internal road frontage, and commissioners expressed concern that 30-foot frontages would substantially reduce lot widths compared with the county—s 80-foot standard.

Court actions and motions After an executive session under Texas Government Code —751.071, the court returned to open session and took two formal actions related to the Red Hawk preliminary plat:

Votes at a glance - Approved apportionment: The court voted to approve the apportionment of county infrastructure costs as proposed by county engineer Vance Lyles and directed Brian Toole (county staff) to provide the developer with material to comply with "local government chapter 232." Motion moved by Judge Stovall; second indicated. Outcome: approved. - Disapproved preliminary plat: The court then voted to enter an order disapproving the Red Hawk preliminary plat application, denying the variances requested in the preliminary plan packet, and including a proportionate apportionment decision in the same order. Motion moved by Judge Stovall; second indicated. Outcome: approved (preliminary plat disapproved).

What remains unresolved The court—s disapproval leaves outstanding questions the transcript shows the court wants addressed before approving any future filing: whether fire protection capacity and equipment will be sufficient for the proposed density; whether road and traffic impacts are mitigated; and whether proposed lot widths comply with the county—s standards or acceptable variances. The developer and the county agreed to continue discussions; county staff were directed to provide the developer with the information needed to comply with the cited local government code provision.

The court adjourned at 11:31 a.m.