Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wallace residents ask Austin County to pause Track 5 subdivision over CCR, drainage concerns
Summary
Several San Bernard subdivision residents told the commissioners they believe a proposed replat of Track 5 violates CCR minimum‑lot standards, risks existing drainage, and was circulated without certified notice; county staff advised residents to meet the county engineer for follow‑up.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
During public comments, multiple Wallace residents urged the court to delay any county action on a proposed subdivision of Track 5 in the San Bernard subdivision until residents and the homeowners association have had opportunity to respond.
Jerry Slinski (who provided a spelling of his last name to the clerk) told the court the owner's planned replat appears to create lots smaller than the 1.5‑acre minimum set by the neighborhood covenants and restrictions (CCRs), and that owners had not received certified notice of proposed CCR changes. "First being that the owner does not meet the 1.5 acres established within the CCRs," Slinski said. He asked the court to hold the matter pending further notice from the subdivision association.
Neighbor Jason Scruggs said the replatting paperwork shows an increase in acreage on the plat (from 7 to 7.5 acres) that he found inconsistent, and he described chronic drainage and flooding near his property that a new road and four home sites would exacerbate. "Somehow it's grown half an acre," Scruggs said, and he urged the court to pause the application while residents pursue CCR enforcement and engineering review.
Gerald White, who recently bought a nearby lot, said submitted plans would "just dam everything up" and lock water onto neighboring properties; he said he received no mailed notice and felt the process had been handled without adequate resident outreach. County staff invited the speakers to provide contact information and to meet with County Engineer Jonathan Hopko so staff can record concerns in the project file and follow up.
The court did not take formal action on the subdivision at this meeting; residents were advised to pursue association remedies while the county monitors permitting activity and keeps the engineer informed.
