Rockwall County disapproves River Rock Trails preliminary plats, cites water and public‑safety concerns

Rockwall County Commissioners Court on June 3 voted unanimously to adopt orders disapproving four preliminary plats for the River Rock Trails development — phase 1A, phase 1B, the proposed wastewater treatment plant and the project’s remainder tract — citing inadequate access to water for fire protection, possible danger to public health and safety, and failure to meet county open‑space requirements.

The disapproval affects preliminary plat submissions the court considered after a county staff review and follow‑up exchanges with the developer. Each motion to adopt an order of disapproval passed 5‑0; the court also authorized county counsel to send the developer formal notice and the adopted orders.

County officials said the orders rely on section 3.2.4 of the Rockwall County Subdivision and Land Development Regulations and on provisions of the Texas Local Government Code (cited in court documents as sections 232.101(a) and 232.032). The orders specifically list: (1) issues and bases under section 3.2.4, including that the subdivision lacks adequate water necessary to serve the development and to provide water for fire protection; (2) a failure to satisfy section 232.032 of the Texas Local Government Code (which requires a certified letter from a water utility certifying availability of water of sufficient quality and quantity); and (3) failure to comply with the county’s open‑space requirements.

Why it matters

County officials and residents said health, safety and emergency‑services access were central to the court’s concerns. Mayor Brian McNeil of McClendon‑Chisholm told commissioners during the public forum that his city has been unable to secure reliable performance from the developer’s contractor on fire protection and related payments, and that his city voted in July 2024 to terminate a fire‑services agreement with the River Rock MUDs. McNeil said the City of McClendon‑Chisholm has not received all required payments and that the city intends to notify the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Texas Attorney General’s office about the timeline of events since July 9, 2024.

Several residents also addressed the court. Frank Merlino, president of the High Point Lake Estates homeowners association, said River Rock’s current plan would be far denser than Rockwall’s strategic plan envisions and would strain roads, schools and emergency services; he repeated a figure presented at the meeting describing thousands of homes and residents in a small footprint and told the court the plat should be denied. Realtor and resident Missy Wadham urged commissioners to deny or pause approval of phases 1A and 1B and the proposed water‑treatment plant, saying proximity of such a plant could hurt property values and that infrastructure and emergency services are not prepared for the proposed density.

Developer response and technical arguments

Arda Anderson, attorney for the applicant, told the court the developer provided a substantial packet of documents after a county request and argued several of the county’s stated reasons for denial were not statutory grounds at the preliminary‑plat stage. Anderson said some items cited by the county (for example, certain well‑service letters) are typically addressed at the construction‑plans or final‑plat stage rather than at the preliminary‑plat stage.

Jeff Miles, a representative for the applicant (identified in the meeting as representing D.R. Horton/Horton Homes interests), said the developer has shown a roughly 190‑acre reserve for potential open space on the remainder tract and has submitted a trail plan covering phases 1A and 1B. Miles said the developer’s team provided a written response to the county’s earlier open‑space analysis and asserted the current submittal meets the three criteria set out by the county’s open‑space review committee. He also explained that DMDS Land Company LLC currently owns the property and that D.R. Horton holds the land under a staged purchase contract; Miles offered to facilitate conveyance of identified open‑space acreage to the county if necessary.

Fire protection, MUDs, and interlocal questions

The public record and comments at the meeting show disagreement over whether McClendon‑Chisholm had the legal ability to unilaterally terminate its agreement and whether the developer’s municipal utility districts (River Rock MUD 1 and MUD 2) remain responsible for funding or providing fire protection. The developer’s counsel and MUD counsel provided written and oral legal positions saying a valid fire contract remains in effect and that unilateral termination is not permitted by the contract (counsel referenced documents submitted to the county including a May 30 letter from Coats Rose). The mayor of McClendon‑Chisholm and others said the city’s council voted on July 9 (and later acted) to repeal or terminate its agreement, and urged the county to treat the absence of demonstrated fire protection as a public‑safety concern.

Court action and next steps

After an executive session in which the court discussed legal matters and documents related to the plats and outside counsel, Commissioner Lichty moved to adopt orders disapproving each of the four preliminary plats; motions were seconded and each passed 5‑0. The court directed its counsel to send the developer the adopted orders and to follow statutory notice requirements for disapproval. No additional development approvals were granted at the meeting.

Clarifying details from the hearing

- Open‑space reserve: the developer identified roughly 190 acres shown on the remainder‑tract preliminary plat as a potential open‑space reserve; the developer said trails for phases 1A and 1B are included in submitted plans. - Documents and timing: the county’s counsel emailed a request for documents on Friday before the Monday meeting; the developer’s attorney said the applicant provided a substantial set of documents within the requested deadline and earlier materials requested weeks before had not been provided by county staff as promised. - Statutory citations used by the court in disapproval orders: Rockwall County Subdivision and Land Development Regulations section 3.2.4; Rockwall County Subdivision and Land Development Regulations section 1.1 (open space); Texas Local Government Code sections 232.101(a) and 232.032.

What the court recorded as the official outcomes

- Agenda item 2 (River Rock Trails phase 1A preliminary plat, version 6): disapproval order adopted; vote 5‑0; county counsel authorized to send notice and order to applicant. - Agenda item 3 (River Rock Trails phase 1B preliminary plat, version 4): disapproval order adopted; vote 5‑0; county counsel authorized to send notice and order to applicant. - Agenda item 4 (River Rock Trails wastewater treatment plant preliminary plat, version 3): disapproval order adopted; vote 5‑0; county counsel authorized to send notice and order to applicant. - Agenda item 5 (River Rock Trails remainder tract preliminary plat, version 2): disapproval order adopted; vote 5‑0; county counsel authorized to send notice and order to applicant.

The court’s formal orders cite the county’s subdivision regulations and Texas statutory requirements; county counsel said the orders will be mailed to the applicant and attachments will document the bases for disapproval. The court did not approve any of the preliminary plats during the June 3 special meeting.