Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners decline variance for flag‑lot split proposed for equine‑therapy project over access and safety concerns
Summary
A request to approve a variance for reduced road frontage on an 8.5‑acre property in Precinct 3 — proposed for an equine therapy center for veterans — failed for lack of a second after commissioners expressed safety concerns about flag lots and emergency access.
Hunt County Commissioners Court on Feb. 11 declined to approve a variance request to reduce road‑frontage requirements for a proposed lot split in Precinct 3 that would create a flag lot and allow an equestrian therapy facility aimed at veterans.
Brian (county staff) briefed the court that the parent parcel is about 8.5 acres; the applicant planned to buy 6 acres and leave a roughly 2.5‑acre tract. Under county frontage rules, the proposed division would leave the remaining parcel short of required frontage: staff said the parcel would need 475 feet of frontage but only 285 feet are available, creating a deficit. Florence Bryant, the applicant, told the court she is a 20‑year Army veteran pursuing a master’s degree in agricultural science and said she intends to provide equine therapy for veterans with PTSD. She also said there are 6,602 disabled veterans in Hunt County and cited Census figures she had reviewed.
Several commissioners and staff voiced concern about approving a flag lot because of long driveways that may be hard to maintain and could impede emergency access. One commissioner said the county has had many flag‑lot problems and is seeking to avoid creating more. Commissioners discussed possible mitigations such as shared driveways or building a private road, but noted those options impose additional engineering and maintenance requirements.
A motion to approve the variance was made and stated by a commissioner from Precinct 3, but it failed for lack of a second and thereby did not pass. The court did not adopt any conditions or alternative measures at this meeting.
Why it matters: The project seeks to serve veterans with PTSD but county public‑safety and road‑maintenance concerns were central to commissioners’ objections. The applicant was offered the opportunity to discuss alternative configurations, road‑building, or to explore purchasing adjacent acreage in future.
