Planning board takes public comment, tables zoning-code update and Eagle Crest CUP repeal until June 5

The Washington County Planning Board heard extensive public comment on a consolidated planning and zoning ordinance and on an item to repeal an ordinance requiring Eagle Crest Recovery to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP). Because the county attorney was not present, the board did not take final action and the items were set to return to the next meeting on June 5.

Several neighbors spoke about Eagle Crest Recovery, a residential recovery facility. Mary McKinney of Lakeview Road said Eagle Crest "has now been operating for 30 months without an approved CUP," that the facility has not obtained a septic assessment and that staff had observed frequent pumper-truck activity. McKinney also said a deposition from Julie Hernandez, identified in public remarks as Eagle Crest's chief operating officer, indicates the facility has exceeded the 15-resident occupancy limit in the original CUP application. McKinney said she believes the facility lacks required sprinklers and is not meeting life-safety requirements cited by the State Fire Marshal and the Nob Hill Fire Department; she said she has photographs and video she intends to share with staff.

Stacey Bennett, another nearby resident, cited depositions and FOIA materials and told the board that in September 2022 the Nob Hill Fire Department and the State Fire Marshal conditioned approval on limiting occupancy to 15 residents until sprinklers were installed. Bennett said Eagle Crest obtained a quote for sprinkler work but had not completed it and expressed concern about sewer/septic capacity.

Multiple residents urged county officials to enforce existing requirements or to clarify what reasonable accommodations, if any, apply. Board members and staff repeatedly told speakers that the county attorney's absence meant the planning board could take public comment but not act on the repeal or ordinance and that the items would be rescheduled.

On the consolidated planning and zoning ordinance, Justice of the Peace Kyle Lyons and Justice of the Peace Evelyn Rio Stafford explained the document is intended as a first-phase codification: Lyons said the draft consolidates roughly 20 separate ordinances into a single code and Stafford said the board had removed a territorial jurisdiction section to reflect recent state legislation. Stafford described the consolidation as "phase 1" and said additional changes could follow in a later phase.

Members of the public raised procedural and substantive concerns about the consolidated draft. Beth Koger asked whether the meeting satisfied the statutory public-hearing requirements for zoning changes; Koger said she did not think it did. Tom Terminella and other speakers criticized provisions they described as granting excessive administrative power to the county judge or creating retrospective obligations, and asked whether certain provisions were enforceable. Sherry Mayne urged tightening agricultural-use definitions and suggested raising planning-board compensation.

Planning staff and JP Stafford said the draft before the board reflects an effort to codify existing county practice rather than create a new zoning regime; staff noted that the quorum court will ultimately consider and vote on the consolidated ordinance. Because the county attorney was not present to advise on statutory procedure and because members of the public asked for additional clarification, the items were held over to the next meeting on June 5.

Key public claims and procedural status • Residents alleged Eagle Crest Recovery has operated without an approved CUP for approximately 30 months, may be exceeding the 15-resident limit from its original application, and lacks required sprinklers and a septic assessment (claims made by public commenters; not adjudicated by the planning board). • Planning staff and Justice of the Peace speakers described the consolidated planning and zoning ordinance as a phase-1 codification of existing rules; it will go to the quorum court for ratification and could be revised further. • The county attorney was absent; the board took public comment but did not vote. The board and staff stated the matter will return on June 5 for further consideration or action.