Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Groundwater Replat topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Missouri City planners deny waiver and replat request amid residentsgroundwater concerns
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission rejected a waiver to skip TCEQ groundwater certification and denied a replat for Oyster Creek Farm Estates on Underwood after residents warned splitting lots would add wells and strain local groundwater; staff and applicant disputed the evidence.
The Missouri City Planning and Zoning Commission on Dec. 10 voted to deny a waiver request that would have allowed a replat of Oyster Creek Farm Estates on Underwood to proceed without a TCEQ groundwater-availability certification, and then voted to deny the replat itself.
Public commenter Sharon Juritza, who said she has lived in Oyster Creek for 47 years, urged commissioners to reject the proposal, saying the subdivision is entirely dependent on water wells and that dividing the existing parcel would set a harmful precedent. "This was denied by you just several months ago to allow a replat of dividing a large lot into 2 lots and putting 2 water wells on it," Juritza said, adding that neighbors have already had to deepen their wells and that additional wells would increase water loss.
Applicant representatives urged the commission to weigh the technical evidence. Bridal Trejo, speaking for the property owner, said the underground-water submittal drew from the Texas Water Development Board and a licensed engineer's review. "The TWDB well log showed nearly domestic wells producing between 50 to 100 gallons per minute," Trejo said, and she told the commission that "by comparison, increasing the tract from 1 lot to 2 adds only 0.3 gallons per minute of additional groundwater demand."
Staff recommended disapproval of the waiver and of the replat because, in staff's view, the application had not provided credible evidence required for a waiver under the cited Texas local government code provision. Commissioners said they were not convinced the record contained the necessary credible evidence and moved to disapprove; the motions carried.
During public comment, a neighbor and an agent for the prospective buyers asked whether conducting pump tests would produce data that could resolve the issue, and the agent said the HOA had approved the replat. Commissioners noted that public comment is recorded but that staff is the appropriate point of contact for follow-up technical questions.
The commission's action means the applicant must either provide the required certification or further technical documentation to meet code requirements before the replat can be reconsidered. The denial was procedural and based on the absence of staff-accepted groundwater evidence; the commission did not adopt an alternative approval pathway at the Dec. 10 meeting.
The matter may return to the commission or to City Council only after applicants submit the documentation required by staff and state law.
