Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Preliminary Plat topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors raise easement and drainage concerns; council tables Buffalo Reserve preliminary plat
Summary
Council temporarily tabled action on the Buffalo Reserve preliminary plat after residents raised questions about recorded easements and potential impacts to drainage and property lines; staff noted statutory deadlines that could trigger automatic approval unless council acts or reconsiders.
The Forney City Council on Sept. 16 tabled consideration of the preliminary plat for the Buffalo Reserve subdivision after multiple nearby property owners presented documents and objections related to recorded easements and drainage.
The item covers 114.6 acres west of Lovers Lane and north of the Skyline Estates planned development, zoned SF-20 for single-family residential uses. The preliminary plat as filed includes 166 single-family lots. Planning staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval prior to the council meeting.
Public speakers: Several residents registered in advance urged council not to approve the plat without confirming the location and legal status of easements that, they said, were recorded with Kaufman County and intended to remain "forever" for drainage/access purposes. Peter Rosenberg and Larry O'Rear handed the council packets of documents and pointed to maps and stamped plats they said demonstrate a 25-foot easement and related restrictions; they asked for the item to be tabled to allow time to confirm recorded easements and provide proper notice of hearings. Another resident provided a survey showing a 25-foot area behind homes that respondents said must be preserved for water flow.
Council discussion and action: Councilmember Jay Weatherford moved to table consent item 11 (the Buffalo Reserve preliminary plat); the motion was seconded and ultimately approved by a show-of-hands vote. During discussion, city staff cautioned council that state law imposes a statutory deadline after which a plat is considered approved if the city does not act; staff and the city attorney explained options including denial (which would require stating reasons) or instructing the applicant to revise the plat to expressly show any easements.
Outcome and next steps: The motion to table was passed with the clear intent by at least one councilmember to seek a motion to reconsider the item at the next council meeting so that the statutory "approval by default" clock would be stopped while the council and staff confirm the legal status of the easements. Staff told council they had not been provided proof in earlier years of a recorded easement affecting the Buffalo Reserve property, and that the Skyline Estates plat does not automatically impose easements on the adjacent Buffalo Reserve property. Council directed staff to review the documents presented and coordinate with the applicant; the council did not approve or deny the plat.
Why it matters: If easements exist and are enforceable, the design and lot layout for Buffalo Reserve could require revision to protect access and drainage. If a statutory approval clock runs, the city could be unable to impose conditions retrospectively. The council's tabling action was intended to buy time for staff review and for the parties to provide documentary proof.
Ending: The item remains unresolved on the council docket pending additional staff review and an anticipated motion to reconsider at the next meeting. If new evidence is not submitted, state timelines could carry legal consequences for the plat approval process.
