Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Platted Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners deny replat variance for Green Oaks subdivision lot amid dispute over prior verbal approvals
Summary
The court denied a variance request to split a platted lot in Green Oaks Subdivision, rejecting the applicant's claim of hardship; the denial came after attorney and applicant statements that the owner had been verbally told in the past he could subdivide.
The Atascosa County Commissioners Court voted 3-0 to deny a variance request that would have allowed the owner of Lot 16 in Green Oaks Subdivision to divide and sell roughly 0.3 acres of his homestead without completing a replat. The item produced the most extended debate of the meeting.
Brittany Van Curren, from the county development office, told the court the variance application did not meet the standards for hardship and recommended denial. The applicant’s attorney, Michael Orbello, said the owner sought the division to “sell for some financial security for his retirement years” and argued the cost of engineering and formal replatting would negate the financial benefit of the sale. Orbello said the owner was an elderly homeowner and that strict application of the ordinance would create a real hardship.
County officials responded that state law and county regulations prohibit dividing property in a platted subdivision without a formal replat. A commissioner noted that rules exist to be followed and expressed concern about setting a precedent if the county relaxed requirements. The attorney for the applicant said the owner had previously subdivided and sold parcels in the area and believed he had been permitted to do so based on prior verbal communications with county staff and a commissioner; no written authorization was produced.
Commissioner Pavelic moved to deny the variance; Commissioner Bowen seconded. The motion carried with three votes in favor. The court record shows remarks from the applicant’s attorney and the county development representative; the court did not identify any written legal exception or hardship documentation in the record that would support granting the variance.
The denial requires the owner to pursue a formal replat if he wishes to subdivide the platted lot. The court did not set a rehearing date nor prescribe alternative relief in the public record.
The transcript records the exchange in the item’s public discussion and the court’s determination; no subsequent appeal or legal action was recorded at the meeting.
