Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Cibolo council tables Venado Crossing Unit 4 final plat after residents raise unfulfilled-amenity and signage concerns
Loading...
Summary
Residents and council members pressed the developer over expired approvals, missing amenity delivery and misleading school‑district information; staff explained infrastructure can be built before a plat is recorded under Texas practice, and council voted 7–0 to table final plat approval for Unit 4 pending further meetings with the developer.
Residents of Venado Crossing urged the Cibolo City Council on Monday to delay approval of the Unit 4 final plat, saying promised amenities have not been built and that homebuyers were misled about school‑district assignments.
Colleen Tyler, a Venado Crossing resident, told the council she bought her home expecting an amenity center to be open by summer 2024 and that two summers have passed with no progress. "We're not against the growth," Tyler said. "We're asking for a responsible growth that values residents as much as development." Cara Latimer, speaking later, asked the council to reexamine PUD phasing and verify that the required commercial acreage and public amenities are preserved under the adopted plan unit development.
Councilmembers, led by Councilwoman Katie Cunningham, pressed staff for factual clarity about why infrastructure appears constructed even though the record indicates a plat expired in June and was not filed with the county. "How are they able to build without ever filing the plat with the county?" Cunningham asked during deliberations.
City staff described the parallel processes for plats and construction. Rick (city staff) told the council that "in Texas, it is absolutely normal to have a development that does not go to recording at the county, and at the same time, you have construction of infrastructure." Staff explained that, in that case, infrastructure remains privately owned until the city accepts it after inspection and required legal steps; construction plans and plat instruments are reviewed separately, and performance bonds can be required to protect the city if infrastructure is not completed.
Council members also flagged other resident complaints, including inconsistent or misleading builder signage showing an incorrect school district and slow delivery of promised amenities. Several members said those issues go beyond technical plat procedures and reflect on developer practices.
After discussion, Councilwoman Katie Cunningham moved that consideration of the Unit 4 final plat be tabled so council and staff can meet with the developer to address outstanding items including amenities, signage and traffic‑signal timing; the motion was seconded and carried 7–0.
The council’s action pauses formal plat approval for Unit 4 while staff, attorneys and councilmembers pursue further conversation with the developer and review the PUD and the city’s public improvement agreement. The tabling does not itself change the city’s technical review process for construction plans or the legal status of existing privately owned infrastructure.
