Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Planning Replat topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fort LongHorn replat approved after resident objections over private-road maintenance; county outlines limits to enforcement
Summary
Hunt County commissioners on Oct. 28 approved a replat of Lots 12 and 3 in the Fort LongHorn addition (Precinct 2) after a public hearing in which a resident objected to additional subdivision and cited flooding and private-road maintenance problems.
A replat of Lots 12 and 3 of Fort LongHorn (Precinct 2) drew public comment on Oct. 28 over private-road maintenance, flooding and the effects of subdividing large lots into smaller parcels. Resident Jerry Johnson objected to further subdivision and said the private road is maintained by local property owners and is periodically impassable in heavy rains.
Jerry Johnson said the road is used as a cut-through between county roads and described recurring flooding and a lack of signage; he said neighbors operate a small road maintenance association and that many users do not contribute to upkeep. He told the court that when the original land was sold decades ago it was in 5‑acre tracts and expressed concern the new replat would create several smaller lots that would increase traffic on a private access road.
County planner Brian explained the proposed replat meets the county's subdivision standards; county staff reported they found no recorded homeowner-association enforcement the county could apply. Daniel, the county attorney, advised the court that covenants, conditions and restrictions (CCRs) and private HOA rules are civil matters enforceable by property owners, not the county, and that denying the replat without a clear health-and-safety basis could expose the county to legal risk. He also said the original Fort LongHorn plat showed a 50‑foot roadway easement but did not record the road as a county-maintained right-of-way.
Because of the resident objections and the legal considerations, the court set the item aside and recessed to executive session for legal consultation. When the court returned to open session after executive session it approved the replat by motion.
The record shows the developer was not present for public comment and that county staff said there was no recorded HOA authority that would permit the county to withhold plat approval on the basis of private deed restrictions. Staff noted a number of earlier replats in the general subdivision had previously created smaller lots, and that county subdivision rules did not, under the facts presented, provide a legal basis to require an immediate upgrade of the private road as a condition for approving the replat.
