Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property owners press Walker County over blocked addresses as developer litigation stalls
Summary
Owners asking for 9-1-1 addresses and a road name said litigation and a dispute with Pineywoods corporate have left them without service; Pineywoods' representative warned the county about legal limits to its subdivision authority and said the company is prepared to litigate.
Property owners who say they have waited two years for official addresses urged Walker County’s commissioners on April 6 to assign road names and emergency addresses so residents can obtain utilities and emergency services.
Deborah May, representing an applicant group seeking an addressing and road-name assignment for about 13–15 properties, told the court the lack of official addresses prevents residents from getting basic services. May said the owners have paid taxes and are simply trying to live and work on their land: "I'm just trying to drive a car," she said, describing the frustration of being unable to get utilities or reliable emergency response without a 9‑1‑1 address.
County staff said the subdivision and road-adoption process remains incomplete for the development in question and that there is ongoing litigation involving Pineywoods corporate interests. Commissioners chose to review the item further with legal counsel and requested staff to return with additional information rather than approve addressing immediately.
A representative for Pineywoods, Tyler Epstein, addressed the court and disputed the county’s asserted authority. Epstein cited state subdivision law and told the court that, if the county were to overstep, Pineywoods would be prepared to pursue civil or criminal remedies. "Under the local government code... the counties are allowed to regulate subdivisions," Epstein said, urging the county to follow statutory procedure and warning that Pineywoods is "more than happy to work through this" but that it also could litigate if necessary.
The court did not grant addressing at the April 6 meeting and asked county legal staff to review the papers and return with guidance at a future session.
