A Planning Commission discussion about subdividing the East Virgin property into five lots exposed a split among commissioners over sewer availability and whether heirs who inherit land should be treated differently from long-term owners.

Commissioners were presented with a 42.6-acre site where the applicant requested five lots with road frontage on Blackwater Road; staff and the commission noted a Blackwater Bayou tributary runs through the site and that sewer service is not available nearby.

The applicant told the commission he had found sewer about 3,800 feet away across private property and that the next closest public sewer appeared far farther; he said he understood a sewer variance would be required and that the variance hearing would be scheduled next month. Planning staff confirmed the sewer variance was a separate matter and not before the commission in this subdivision review.

Commissioner comments repeatedly returned to the 2013 cutoff: several commissioners said the number of allowable post‑2013 lots is limited, and that prior subdivision approvals had included a stipulation that no further subdivisions would be allowed without sewer availability. One commissioner said he found it unfair to treat heirs differently from owners who subdivided their own property, calling the situation “not just.” Another commissioner said the city cannot craft an ordinance that treats heirs differently from other applicants because any rule would apply to commercial as well as residential property.

Commissioner discussion also flagged responsibility for stream-setback maintenance; staff reiterated that the city would not maintain the stream setback unless otherwise accepted. One commissioner said he could not support the subdivision without sewer and moved to deny; that motion did not secure a majority on roll call.

The commissioners recorded split votes on the motion to deny (roll-call recorded a tie between yes and no votes). Commissioners advised the applicant that he could approach the City Council to request a waiver or proceed with the scheduled sewer variance next month. Planning staff noted that the council retains authority to consider waivers and that this commission’s action did not preclude a council review.

No final administrative approval was recorded in the meeting for the subdivision; the applicant was told the next steps would be either a sewer variance hearing or appeal to the City Council for a waiver. The commission’s debate underscored competing policy aims: limiting low‑infrastructure subdivisions versus allowing heirs to divide inherited property. The transcript records concerns about precedent and the costs and availability of sewer as central to the decision-making.