Kendall County abates two show-cause hearings for unpermitted development, gives owners 60 days to comply

KENDALL COUNTY, Texas — Kendall County Commissioners on Feb. 25 paused two show-cause proceedings opened this month over alleged unpermitted site work and structures, giving each property owner a 60‑day window to submit engineering plans and show good‑faith steps toward correcting violations.

The court first called Cause No. 2025‑1, involving property owner Eric Eggenmeier, who was accused of permitting‑related violations after grading and placement of impervious material on a site where the county had earlier issued notices. County Engineer Mary Ellen Shuey told the court the county first issued a notice of violation in September 2022 and observed additional disturbance and impervious material thereafter; the county and Eggenmeier’s representatives had met repeatedly but the owner missed a deadline to retain an engineer and establish temporary detention measures.

Judge Shane Slarsick moved to hold the show‑cause proceeding in abeyance for 60 days so the owner, his engineer and any contractors can complete a proposed schedule and start temporary measures; the motion was seconded and carried 4‑0.

In Cause No. 2025‑2, the court considered property owned by Brian Presley, operator of a nonprofit baseball program. County staff reported unpermitted site work including a new driveway, batting cage and other structures. Presley told the court several of the structures predated his ownership and that certified mail containing the county notice had been returned unopened; he said he had begun making contacts with a professional engineer to resolve the issues. The court also granted a 60‑day abatement in that matter; the motion carried with three votes in favor and one abstention.

Why it matters: County officials said the show‑cause docket is a new enforcement step to address repeat or longstanding development violations and to ensure county rules are applied fairly. Commissioners emphasized the juristic distinction between “discussion” and formal contempt: the abeyance gives property owners a chance to comply while preserving the court’s enforcement authority if good‑faith progress is not shown.

Court directions and next steps: For Eggenmeier the court asked his attorney, David McClain, to submit a proposed order with a timeline for the abeyance and evidence of consultant mobilization. Engineer James Magar (consultant for Eggenmeier) told the court a temporary outfall or similar short‑term measure could typically be installed within five to seven days if contractors were mobilized. For Presley the court asked the owner and his counsel to coordinate with county engineering and provide a status report at the 60‑day check‑in.

Court warnings and enforcement: Commissioners warned that if the court finds no good‑faith compliance after the 60‑day period it will revisit formal penalties; for the Eggenmeier matter the court also said it would consider requiring the property owner to pay the cost of court‑reporter services for any rescheduled show‑cause hearing if additional formal proceedings were necessary.

Context: The hearings followed multiple notices of violation and meetings between county staff, property owners and private engineers. County staff said the primary concerns are impervious cover installed without approved drainage and detention, and failure to follow required platting and permitting steps. Owners said absent or delayed contractor work, disputes between owner and tenant/developer, and difficulty obtaining timely engineering services had impeded prompt compliance.

Quotes (selected): County Judge Shane Slarsick told the room during the first case, “Everyone’s innocent until proven guilty, and we’re here to just get more information.” Eric Eggenmeier, the owner in the first proceeding, told the court, “I am not even in business yet… I have not sold 1 thing off that property since I’ve been there,” describing financial strain and asking for time to work with his engineers and lessees.

Ending: The court set a 60‑day status window for both cases. Staff and counsel were instructed to cooperate on written timelines and to appear for the court’s check‑in at the end of the period. If the court determines inadequate progress, it said it will reconvene the show‑cause hearings and consider sanctions.