Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners deny Enchanted Oaks variance after drainage, grading concerns
Summary
Kaufman County commissioners denied a developer's request to omit 1:40-scale grading sheets from the Enchanted Oaks plan, citing downstream drainage and flooding risks despite the developer's claim that paving sheets already show needed contours.
Kaufman County commissioners voted to deny an appeal by the developer of Enchanted Oaks, rejecting a requested variance that would have allowed the plan set to omit 1:40-scale grading sheets.
Hayden Moses, who identified himself as a representative of the property owner with Baymax Insurance Group, told the court the project covers about 530 acres called Chain Of Oaks and that lots would be between about 1.5 and 6 acres. Moses said grading and contour information already appears on the paving sheets and that adding roughly 34 separate grading sheets would be redundant and impose substantial time and cost on the developer. "Adding these grading sheets to the plan set would add hardship to the developer," Moses said.
County staff and multiple commissioners pushed back, citing the county's requirement that grading and drainage plans be shown at the specified scale so the consulting engineer can perform a thorough review. One commissioner referenced a prior subdivision in which incomplete grading contributed to downstream flooding and homes taking on water, saying the court sought to prevent a repeat. Staff clarified that the regulations do not allow lot-to-lot drainage, that grading and drainage improvements are the developer's responsibility and that an inspection occurs after construction to confirm approved grading matches the plans.
The court's action leaves enforcement and the requirement for grading/drainage sheets in place; staff noted an applicant whose variance is denied may appeal but the development support committee had unanimously recommended denial. The motion to deny carried on the court floor.
The developer offered that the project's flood study (prepared for the development team) shows no downstream effects from the planned grading, and suggested covenant language or buyer acknowledgements might be used to assign lot-level drainage responsibilities to future purchasers. Commissioners warned such buyer agreements would create civil remedies rather than substitute for the county's technical review and approval process.
The court's denial will keep the consulting-engineer review requirement in place; the developer may pursue further administrative appeal per the subdivision regulations.
