Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Watershed topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Creeks Edge residents press Bee Cave council for answers after 188-acre clearing above Little Barton Creek
Summary
Homeowners in the Creeks Edge subdivision told the Bee Cave City Council they have not received clear answers about nearly a year of clearing and pipe installation on a 180–188 acre tract above Little Barton Creek, which residents say affects a protected watershed and local property values.
Get email alerts on the Land Development Watershed topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Several residents of the Creeks Edge subdivision told the Bee Cave City Council during the public-comment period that they remain without clear information about work on an approximately 180–188 acre tract above Little Barton Creek, including what they described as extensive clearing and installation of “purple pipe” that they say looks like sewer infrastructure.
The residents said they first raised questions with city staff in early August and have received little substantive follow-up. “This sits right above Little Barton Creek,” said Jim Lavender, who identified himself as owner of Terra Builders and said his company built seven homes in Creeks Edge. “There’s been work going on there for almost a year and we’ve yet to be able to find out what it is and what’s going on.”
Why it matters: Little Barton Creek feeds Big Barton Creek and then flows toward downtown Austin, and residents said they are concerned about erosion, stormwater protection and the effect on property values for people living near the tract. Speakers told council that two prospective buyers for a house on the market withdrew offers because the seller could not answer questions about the nearby work.
Residents described the tract as largely cleared, with long runs of the purple pipe visible from a distance. “All we can see from a distance is purple pipe, which means sewer pipe,” Lavender said, adding that the permit documents he has seen label the work as an irrigation tract. Julie Lavender, who said she is the realtor for a Creeks Edge lot on the market, said the permit in hand lists the use as “nonresidential irrigation tract” and said the uncertainty is causing daily carrying costs and extra mitigation expenses. She told the council the development has put a “carry cost of at least a thousand dollars per day” on the sellers.
Robert Humphrey, president of the Creeks Edge homeowners association, said earlier inquiries were redirected among the mayor’s office, the city manager and Travis County with no clear answer as to who approved the work or which jurisdictions have signed off. “I’ve sent it to the city manager,” Humphrey said. “City manager forwarded it to Travis County and said, ‘Can you, is this is a resident that wants to know what’s going on on this property?’ And I’ve gotten no response either.”
Councils’ response and next steps: Mayor Pro Tem Clark acknowledged the comments and said the council could not discuss non-agenda items at length during public comment but that staff had heard the concerns and that the city was working to follow up. “We can’t comment directly on the substance because it’s not on the agenda, but I do want you to understand that we do appreciate you coming, and we’ve heard you, and are, you know, trying to remedy this problem,” Clark said. He asked staff to follow up with the residents.
What residents asked the city to clarify: who approved the plans; whether the work matches approved plans; who is inspecting the work; whether regional authorities such as LCRA or Travis County signed off; and whether the clearing and pipe installation are consistent with protections for the Little Barton Creek watershed.
Context and background: Speakers said they met with city officials on Aug. 5 and Aug. 8 and that the developer of a nearby warehouse distribution center previously prompted concerns in the neighborhood. One resident said parts of the tract are subject to litigation but others said their questions are not legal in nature and relate only to what is being built now.
What the record shows and does not show: Residents presented a permit that calls the tract an “irrigation tract,” and they reported visible pipe and grading. City staff did not offer technical answers or approvals during public comment; the council did not take formal action on the matter during the meeting.
Ending note: Residents said they want prompt, clear written answers about the nature of the work and the jurisdictional approvals behind it so they can advise buyers and protect neighborhood property values.
