Rockwall County hears D.R. Horton appeal over apportionment costs for River Rock Trails development

Rockwall County held a special meeting April 24 to hear D.R. Horton’s appeal of a March 4, 2025, county apportionment letter for the River Rock Trails development, as residents raised concerns about traffic and infrastructure during the public forum.

The developer’s counsel argued the county exceeded its statutory authority by listing 16 items in the apportionment letter and said only county infrastructure (primarily roads, pipes and drainage) may be the subject of an apportionment under Texas law. "The burden of proof under the case law is on the county," said Art Anderson, attorney for the applicant, adding that most items on the county’s list are not county-owned infrastructure and lack the professional-engineer reports required by statute.

That legal interpretation was sharply disputed by the county’s representative, who framed the dispute as a question of statutory meaning. "If you take a step back and boil this down ... the real underlying issue is an issue of legal authority," the county speaker said, arguing the county may lawfully require assurances and contributions for services and facilities that serve the county geographically.

The hearing included technical testimony on roads. Jeff Miles, a licensed professional engineer for the developer, testified that an existing adjacent road, FM 548, is a state road and that the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shows capacity well above the near-term trips from the first two phases. "The capacity is 875 vehicles per hour per lane each direction and we are roughly 13 to 14% of that total," Miles testified, describing peak-hour trip counts of about 115 westbound in the morning and 127 eastbound in the evening generated by the roughly 418 homes in phases 1A and 1B.

County counsel and staff pressed other items listed in the apportionment letter: school impacts, law enforcement, fire/EMS contracts and water. The county’s written materials cite a school-yield email and a per-student cost figure used to calculate a school-related apportionment, and counsel described a multi-point disagreement over whether the county may require school-related payments under the apportionment statute.

Water supply was a central point of contention. The county asked for a binding "will-serve" commitment; counsel for the county said the materials provided to date show only conditional or "can-serve" letters from providers and do not demonstrate binding contractual rights for the quantities of water needed for full buildout. County counsel said documents did not show that Blackland (the local utility referenced in filings) has secured the necessary contractual rights from upstream suppliers, including North Texas and the Sabine River Authority, to serve the development at scale.

Fire and emergency services were also debated. The county noted uncertainty about the validity of a contract between the city of McLendon-Chisholm and the developer or associated entities; the county said some conditions precedent required for that contract to be effective had not been satisfied and that the city later took actions that the county views as potentially terminating the agreement. The county said that, without effective commitments for emergency services, it could not rely on those items as guaranteed.

Developer counsel emphasized statutory limits and the lack of professional-engineer reports supporting most of the county’s 16 listed items, saying that, aside from roads, the county had not produced the individualized engineering analyses the statute requires. "Infrastructure means pipelines and or water lines and streets and drainage," Anderson said in rebuttal, arguing the statute contemplates typical civil infrastructure and professional-engineer analysis tied to those items.

Public comments before the hearing included residents who said the scale of the planned development—a project counsel and witnesses said could eventually include more than 6,000 homes—would overwhelm existing local infrastructure and services. Brian McNeil, a resident, said, "I'm just pro smart development," and urged developers and jurisdictions to coordinate. Another resident said summer water and septic capacity and traffic on FM 548 and SH 205 are already concerns for nearby neighborhoods.

No final, dispositive ruling was recorded at the hearing. Counsel for both sides referenced multiple written exhibits and legal briefs in the record; the court opened the hearing for testimony, accepted the presentations and indicated it would consider the filings and evidence when deciding the appeal. The court adjourned at 2:16 p.m.

The hearing focused on legal interpretation and documentary proof rather than on a final vote or immediate order. County staff and counsel noted the apportionment proceeding is statutorily separate from the county’s prior denial of preliminary plats; the apportionment appeal concerns whether the county has authority to require the listed dedications, fees or construction obligations and whether the county supplied required engineer-backed proportionality analyses for each item.

What happens next: the record consists of several written exhibits (including TIA materials, will/can-serve letters, school-yield correspondence and competing legal briefs). The court did not announce a decision at the meeting; any order resolving the appeal would be entered after the court’s review of the evidence and the applicable law.