Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents oppose new valley parks; Shenandoah council votes to postpone master plan
Summary
After more than a dozen residents testified against proposed parks in the valley — citing safety, parking and loss of green space — Shenandoah council voted 4–1 to delay action on a parks and recreation master plan the consultant said is meant to support future grant applications.
Shenandoah council members voted Wednesday to postpone adoption of a parks and recreation master plan after an extended citizens forum during which neighbors raised safety, parking and preservation concerns about proposed parks in the valley.
Paul Howard of Burdick Consultants presented the plan as a 5‑to‑10‑year vision and a practical tool to qualify the city for state grants. He told the council the consultant team collected 195 online survey responses and found that roughly 66% of residents live within a 10‑minute walk of a park; the report also showed Shenandoah has about 7.48 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Howard emphasized the plan’s recommendations are conceptual and not a commitment to build.
Several speakers who live near proposed sites urged the council to halt park construction in the valley. “I live at 726 Shenandoah Drive where you want to put a park right behind my house,” said Roxanne Pierce, who cited drainage and privacy concerns and criticized the survey’s outreach. Josh Parks, another nearby resident, said speeding is already a hazard in his cul‑de‑sac and recounted being struck by a vehicle: “What are y’all gonna do about it, man? I was almost taken from my family because y’all don’t enforce the law.” Sherry Quigley, a Shenandoah resident since 1974, said cutting woods for parks would eliminate wildlife and shade that long‑time neighbors value.
Other residents urged the city to prioritize maintenance of existing amenities — including the splash pad and sidewalks — and asked that any future decisions include direct outreach to seniors and adjacent neighbors. Several speakers questioned whether the plan’s public input accurately represented city residents; Paul Howard and staff said the survey included a residency question and that 195 responses produced a stated confidence interval but acknowledged some participants may have been visitors to city events.
Council members and staff responded that the master plan’s concepts are intended primarily to make the city eligible for grants such as those administered by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and that the city would not automatically build facilities that would cause parking or safety problems. City staff also said some parcels are deed‑restricted for public use only and that any design phase would include targeted outreach to adjacent property owners.
After discussion, Councilman Robinson moved to table the adoption and seek additional time for council review and public comment; Councilman Summerlin seconded. The motion to postpone the item passed 4–1.
What’s next: Council directed staff to solicit more resident feedback and promised clearer public disclosures about the plan’s purpose and that proposed sites remain conceptual pending further public input and design review.
