Liberty County commissioners approve letter supporting Bayou Bell MMD

2848142 · February 20, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After a developer presentation, the court voted to create a nonbinding letter of support for the proposed Bayou Bell municipal management district, which developers say would fund on‑site services and infrastructure. Commissioners asked for more data on drainage, traffic and school planning before future approvals.

At a Feb. 20, 2025 special meeting, the Liberty County Commissioners Court voted to approve a letter of support for creating the Bayou Bell Municipal Management District (MMD) after a presentation by the development team.

The letter is nonbinding and intended to accompany the developer’s legislative request to create the MMD. The developer said the district would allow assessments to pay for services such as a fire station and sheriff’s office presence and to fund infrastructure inside the proposed community.

Developer Logan Marchman and his partner Greg Monet told the court the Bayou Bell property is roughly 876 acres now (with about 70 additional acres expected soon) and could include about 2,200 homes of mixed types. Marchman said the plan preserves about 40% open space, includes acreage lots of 1–5 acres, and sets aside about 17.5 acres for a school site (the developer said the acreage could be increased if needed). He described the product mix as rear‑loaded single‑family lots, cottage/townhome fields and a build‑to‑rent component; target lot widths discussed included 30‑ and 40‑foot products intended to be more affordable to local workers.

Marchman said pricing aims for 30‑foot homes to be affordable at roughly $200,000 and 40‑foot homes near $225,000 by reducing some exterior costs and using alternative siding materials. He told the court the plan emphasizes walking trails, amenitized detention areas, neighborhood porches and a small commercial node near the frontage, and that the MMD would enable explicit assessments to fund county services in the district.

The developer acknowledged floodplain constraints on portions of the site and said some land falls in the 500‑year floodplain; he described the team’s intent to be conservative in placing development outside the worst flood areas and to integrate existing drainage features and District Drainage (DD1) channels into the overall plan. He also said primary vehicle access to State Highway 99 would run via FM 1413 and that traffic and road improvements (including potential signalization and future widening) will need long‑range coordination with the county.

County staff and several commissioners pressed for follow up on drainage studies, street widths, alley/one‑way street designs, and school district coordination. County staff noted a leadership transition at the local school district and said the district would get first right to the dedicated school site but that a private charter operator has expressed interest if the district does not take the land.

County staff member Catherine told the court the letter would be strictly supportive and nonbinding: "It's not binding on the actual development itself." Court staff also confirmed the district’s official county numbering. After discussion the court directed staff to use the local naming/numbering convention; county staff advised the Bayou Bell entity would be filed as Liberty County MMD number 3 if it is named as a Liberty County MMD.

Commissioner Bruce St. Gerald moved to approve drafting the letter of support; the motion was seconded on the record and carried by voice vote. The letter does not create the district—state legislation is required to form an MMD, and developers said they were meeting with lobbyists and counsel the following day to pursue legislative authorization.

The court asked staff to require future submittals of drainage studies, survey data and a development agreement before any binding county approvals related to infrastructure. The developer said the initial phase would prioritize acreage lots, with higher density phases to follow once surveys and drainage models are complete.

The court’s action was limited to authorizing a county letter of support; further approvals (development agreements, drainage and infrastructure plan approvals, and any bond issuance) would require later, standard agenda items and staff review.

Ending note: Commissioners emphasized they wanted to be kept apprised of drainage study results, road‑improvement plans and any school‑district decisions as the project moves from concept to engineering and statutory steps.