The Sugar Land Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously Wednesday to approve the preliminary plat for Rye Hill Section 5, a 32.243‑acre, 114‑lot single‑family portion of the larger Rye Hill master plan. The motion to approve passed 7‑0.

The preliminary plat lays out lots, streets, reserves and blocks for the section and demonstrates compliance with minimum lot‑width standards, staff said. Staff noted the section’s lots are generally 60 feet wide, with an additional 10 feet on corner lots, and that box exhibits are required for lots on curves and cul‑de‑sacs to show required front build‑line widths.

Staff said the Rye Hill master plan is an approximately 960‑acre mixed‑use community in the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction south of the Brazos River and includes about 2,300 single‑family and Del Webb (55+) residential lots and a roughly 60‑acre flex‑commercial tract north of FM 2759. Section 5 is located south of FM 2759 and east of FM 762 with primary access from Rye Hill Parkway.

Jessica, a planning department staff member who presented the item, told commissioners that the preliminary plat itself may be approved, but a recorded document that abandoned a drill‑site access easement applied only to Section 2 of Rye Hill and did not abandon the easement for the other sections. "At the time of final plat, it will not be able to clear comments until that drill site access easement is abandoned," she said, and added the unresolved easement does not block preliminary plat approval.

Vice Chairman Landin moved to approve the preliminary plat and Commissioner Brown seconded. The commission voted 7‑0 to approve the preliminary plat with no conditions recommended by staff.

The approval allows the applicant to proceed toward final plat submittal; staff and the commission emphasized that final plat recordation and any signatures will require the drill‑site access easement to be addressed before final plat clearance. The commission reminded staff and applicants that final plats must meet the subdivision regulations and that any approval with conditions or a disapproval must cite code reasons.

If applicants do not resolve the recorded easement affecting future sections, staff said the unresolved item will be a hold point during final plat review rather than an impediment to the commission’s preliminary plat approval.

Commissioners thanked staff for clear packet materials and the applicant for their work; no public comment was offered on the item.