Residents urge removal of Laguna Vista–3 Oaks connection as county readies public hearings on thoroughfare plan

Dozens of residents from Laguna Vista, 3 Oaks and nearby subdivisions told the Guadalupe County Commissioners Court on July 15 they oppose a proposed connection that would extend Laguna Vista Drive to 3 Oaks and Highway 46, saying the alignment would run through homes, increase flooding and destroy neighborhood character.

"This proposal represents a permanent, destructive solution to a temporary problem," said Millie Watson, who said she and her husband Wayne had lived at 376 Laguna Vista Drive for 42 years and presented a petition with roughly 210 signatures. "We respectfully request the removal of the proposed Laguna Vista Drive to 3 Oaks connection from the transportation and mobility master plan."

Other residents described repeated flooding in the river bottom, proximity of homes to the proposed path and the need for deeper retention and detention for new development. Karen McMillan, a longtime local real‑estate broker, said increased runoff from subdivisions and new roads would raise flood risk at Lake McQueeney and reduce property values. Several speakers said they had not received notice from Seguin or other jurisdictions about the maps and only learned about the alignment after neighbors were notified.

Assistant county engineer Barry Black told the court the thoroughfare plan is a countywide, "living document" the county is coordinating with city plans including Seguin’s. Black proposed scheduling a public unveiling in mid‑September (options include Sept. 18, 23 or 25) with a 30‑day comment period and a possible final court acceptance in November. "We want your involvement," he said, urging residents to review draft maps and tell the county where lines do not make sense.

Commissioners acknowledged residents’ concerns and pledged to re‑examine the specific alignment raised at the meeting. Precinct 1 Commissioner (identified in court speech) said his office continues to receive many individual landowner complaints and asked that consultant responses be provided in writing. The court signaled intent to host public hearings in August and to refine outreach materials in coordination with GIS and the elections office.

Next steps: the county plans to post draft maps and public‑meeting details on its website, hold at least one public hearing in early August to gather input, and return to the court with proposed dates and a formal order to call a 30‑day public review period before a final decision.