Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ellis County sends Big Creek Estates preliminary plat back to planning commission for fixes
Summary
Facing resident objections about water supply, cul-de-sac radius, lot sizes, drainage and sewer availability, the county commission voted to return the Big Creek Estates preliminary plat to the planning commission with a list of required issues to address.
The Ellis County Commission on Jan. 6 referred the preliminary plat for Big Creek Estates (third addition) back to the planning commission for further work after residents and staff identified multiple technical and regulatory concerns.
Justin Craig, environmental services director, summarized the application: the preliminary plat (filed Nov. 17, 2025) proposed 14 residential parcels and a stormwater retention lot north of Reservation Road between Big Creek Drive and Logan Drive. Craig told commissioners the proposed lots range from about 12,230 to 25,549 square feet, that septics would not be allowed and that the applicant must demonstrate sewer-service arrangements, water-well setbacks and a dated stormwater plan before final plat approval.
Why it matters: neighbors and county staff said the preliminary plat may conflict with Ellis County subdivision and zoning regulations that require proof of water supply, minimum lot sizes for specified districts, proper cul-de-sac radii for public roads and adequate stormwater detention placement.
Residents detailed multiple concerns. James Graham, who lives in Big Creek Estates, cited subdivision rules and said the proposal did not show adequate water-supply proofs or comply with required setbacks and detention distances. Engineer Randy Perdue (Kaw Valley Engineering) said the developer expects to address items on the final plat and will add required language on setbacks and servicing. Several residents warned that some lots appear undersized if centralized water and sanitary sewer are not provided.
Commission reaction and action: the commission discussed three options (approve, deny, or send back for more work) and ultimately voted to neither approve nor deny the preliminary plat but to return it to the planning commission with a written list of issues the county wants addressed (sewer agreement, water-well setbacks, stormwater plan, controlled access points and clarification of whether streets will be public or private). The motion to refer passed 3–0.
Next steps: the planning commission will review the list and consider the recommended changes at its next meeting; the applicant may submit a revised preliminary or a final plat after addressing the county's concerns.
