The Walker County Commissioners Court on July 28 postponed a public hearing and vote on Plat No. 2025‑016 — Replat A Lot 7 and 8, Block 1, Section 7 of the Wildwood Shore Subdivision — after survey evidence and homeowner testimony revealed a disputed boundary alignment.

The replat request would consolidate two lots to let a buyer build a house; the petitioners asked the court to approve the replat at the hearing. County staff opened the hearing and allowed public comment and testimony from surveyors. The court said the item would be returned for the Aug. 11 meeting so participants could pursue follow‑up with surveyors and affected property owners.

Why it matters: The dispute centered on whether recently placed pins reflect the subdivision’s original monumentation or whether fence lines and later development have shifted the visible boundaries. County land‑use approvals depend on accurate monumentation; approving a replat while the physical boundary is contested could trigger additional property disputes or litigation later.

What happened at the hearing: Property owner Boyce Curry told the court he had purchased two lots and sought consolidation so he could begin construction. He said a later survey uncovered a roughly 1‑foot discrepancy where a fence runs, and that he had H&H Surveying perform multiple field visits to reconcile the boundary. He asked the court to proceed with the replat so his builder could start construction.

The opposing property owner, identified in the hearing as Mr. Lee, told the court the subdivision has relied on an original boundary for more than 20 years and that a recent survey placed new pins that, in his view, produce an inconsistent boundary. Lee asked the court to delay action so the parties could resolve the survey dispute.

Colt West, a field supervisor who said he led the county’s recent survey work, reported that his field crew re‑created the original subdivision plat from existing monument references and that the only monument they could not locate was a single bulkhead reference in the rear of the block. West told the court his team found that most lots in the block align with the recreated plat and that discrepancies appear limited to the parcel(s) with development that disturbed the monumentation.

Court action and next steps: The court closed public comment and agreed to postpone the matter and re‑post the hearing for Aug. 11, directing the parties to confer with surveyors and county staff before then. County staff said the refiled item would be posted with the earliest legally permissible notice and that no additional fees would be charged if the applicant returns within that window.

Context and constraints: Court staff and surveyors emphasized that property line disputes are ultimately legal questions for district/civil court if the parties cannot otherwise agree; the county’s replat decision is limited to the subdivision and plat procedures and does not adjudicate private boundary ownership.

Speakers quoted or summarized in this article were present in the July 28 public hearing and are listed in the article metadata below.