Kendall County OKs reduced rear setbacks for Highgarden subdivision after contested public hearing

Kendall County Commissioners Court approved a request to reduce the required rear setbacks for the Highgarden subdivision in a 3–1 vote on April 8, after a public hearing in which neighbors, a former commissioner and developer representatives raised drainage and notification concerns.

The court approved reducing the rear setback to 15 feet on Phase 1, Block 1 lots 1–4 and 11–13, and 10 feet on all other lots in Phase 1 and on Phase 2 lots. The motion was made by Commissioner John Carpenter and seconded; County Judge Shane Salazar recused himself from participation on the item.

The decision matters because opponents said tighter spacing and larger house footprints could increase runoff and concentrate flows toward downstream neighbors. Clay Forester of the county engineer's office told the court the subdivision’s engineer concluded the change would not increase impacts to the creek and that the detention pond sizing remains consistent with prior assumptions: "According to the engineers' representation, there will be no increase on the impact to the creek," Forester said. Forester also noted that if the development were filed today it would need wider streets under current county standards, but that the front setbacks were not changing — only the rear.

During the public hearing, former Commissioner Elkins said concentrated roof footprints and closer house spacing worried long-time residents: "A one-inch rain will dump 20, 30,000 gallons of water real quick," he said, urging careful scrutiny of drainage. Resident Mike Lucky urged the court to follow Texas statutes and to pursue special legislation if the county wanted larger lot minimums. Developer representative Sean Laverne said the number of lots and homes will not change and that the reduced setback would allow builders to use a standard long footprint without increasing unit counts: "There would be no additional units. You would have one home per lot, and the number of lots is the same." He added that an HOA architectural committee will limit impervious cover and review individual homes.

Commissioners asked for and received several clarifications during the hearing. Forester and the county engineer’s office emphasized that the detention design and runoff assumptions underpin the engineer’s conclusion that downstream flows would not increase; county staff noted that several lots that sheet-flow offsite will need verification that revised footprints still return runoff to the preexisting sheet-flow pattern. County counsel and staff also confirmed that the request seeks to apply the county’s current setback rules to this development rather than the older, more stringent rules under which the subdivision originally began.

Commissioner Richard Chapman said he was concerned some neighbors who had objected during the 2020–21 review had not been directly notified under the current plat name and requested additional outreach. The court discussed notification rules and learned that the county’s notice requirements apply to the subdivision as currently platted; adjoining owners outside the subdivision are not automatically notified unless letters are sent. Chapman asked staff to attempt outreach to adjacent property owners before final recording steps.

Outcome: the motion passed 3–1. The court recorded that three commissioners voted in favor and one opposed; Judge Salazar announced he would recuse and did not participate. No amendments to the approval were recorded at the time; staff and the developer agreed to coordinate on verification of runoff handling for lots that sheet-flow offsite and on potential HOA rain-catchment measures.

The approval allows the developer to seek a plat revision consistent with the granted relief; any subsequent plat amendment or construction will return to the county process for review and permitting. County staff said they will revisit conditions if weather or engineering findings change and will require any future filings to show compliance with detention and impervious-cover requirements.

The public hearing and the variance request generated substantive public comment and technical discussion; the court closed the hearing and moved to the formal vote later in the agenda.