Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public supports grandfather clause as Guadalupe County opens hearing on subdivision regulation changes
Summary
At a public hearing on proposed changes to Guadalupe County's subdivision regulations, surveyors and residents urged a grandfather clause and a flexible effective date (one speaker suggested "or after June 1"); county staff explained limitations on regulating developers and noted the proposed amendments include five exceptions under Section 3.
Guadalupe County Commissioner's Court held a public hearing on proposed amendments to the county's subdivision regulations, specifically revisions to Section 3 (exemptions) and a proposed grandfather clause.
Ken Reininger of Bettersworth Engineering and Surveying told the court he supports a grandfather clause and recommended an effective window to avoid a rush of filings. "If you voted on it today," he said, "the grandfather clause would be the June 1," noting surveyors are already backlogged and recording delays make a short cutoff unfair to owners who have surveys in progress.
Reininger also suggested allowing proof of a completed survey (rather than only the recording date) to qualify for grandfathering so work already completed in good faith would not be disqualified. Residents raised related concerns about whether developers could be required to pay for road impacts; a longtime resident, Kevin McConkie, said heavy truck traffic from upcoming subdivisions will worsen local streets and asked whether developers can be "held to the fire" for costs.
County staff and the presiding official explained the county's legal authority is limited; the court noted the Texas Legislature has constrained local regulatory tools and that, in many cases, if a developer meets statutory and county requirements the plat must be approved or is deemed approved by operation of law. Staff signaled the draft includes five exceptions (one already in current regulations with amended language) and that the court would decide on precise grandfathering dates and recording requirements as part of any final ordinance.
The public hearing record was closed at approximately 10:47 a.m., and the matter was set for later consideration by the court.
