Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grayson County denies GRBK Edgewood’s Sunset Ranch Phase 2A plat after developer declines required changes
Summary
The Grayson County Commissioners Court voted Sept. 18 to deny an amended plat for Sunset Ranch Phase 2A, citing multiple unmet conditions and unpaid fees after the applicant declined to satisfy county subdivision requirements.
The Grayson County Commissioners Court denied an amended plat submission for Sunset Ranch Phase 2A, submitted by GRBK Edgewood LLC, at a special-called meeting Sept. 18, 2025, after county staff recommended denial because the developer refused to meet required conditions.
County Development Services staff told the court the application, first submitted June 3, 2025, and conditionally approved June 27, 2025, was resubmitted Sept. 7, 2025, but still failed to meet multiple conditions of the county's conditional approval. "Staff is recommending denial of the plat," a Grayson County Development Services staff member said during the meeting.
The staff report, summarized at the meeting, identified several unmet conditions. The resubmittal did not include the county-required private subdivision notes (Grayson County Subdivision Regulations sections 4.5.0.1–4.5.0.6), did not provide the correct owner's certification language for private subdivisions (GCSR 3.3.0.9), and retained an incorrect certificate of acceptance instead of the county's required dedication statement for privately maintained roads (appendix B). The staff member also said the applicant had not paid required fees: engineering fees of $19,900 and inspection fees of $63,000, as listed in the Grayson County development fee schedule and the subdivision regulations. The staff report further noted that plans did not show required concrete roads along the full frontage length of the existing county road (for the Fox and Block frontage), per the Grayson County engineering and construction standard manual and subdivision regulations.
During discussion, a commissioner asked whether the resubmittal was a first or a subsequent round of corrections; the staff member said the county had previously approved the plat subject to conditions and that the Sept. 7 resubmittal did not meet those conditions. The staff member also confirmed that several deficiencies implicated both county subdivision regulations and applicable state law on development fees.
Commissioner Marsh moved to deny the plat "based on the reasons that you provided for them not following our Grayson County regulations along with the state statute regulations," and Commissioner Arthur seconded. The court voice-voted in favor; the motion carried.
No further action was taken on the item. The court adjourned shortly thereafter; no future dates or follow-up assignments were announced during the meeting.
