Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Henderson County court disapproves Goodell Ranch plat, cites groundwater‑study rule
Summary
The county commissioners disapproved the proposed Goodell Ranch subdivision after staff and the court said county subdivision rules require a groundwater‑availability study or a formal variance despite a state exemption cited by the applicant.
Henderson County Commissioners Court voted unanimously to disapprove the final plat for Goodell Ranch, concluding the county’s subdivision regulations require a groundwater‑availability study or an approved variance before the three‑lot plat can proceed.
The court’s action followed a lengthy discussion about a statutory exemption tied to the Carrizo‑Wilcox aquifer. An applicant representative, identified in the record as a Western Lake Properties representative, said engineers and geologists told them the Carrizo‑Wilcox is ‘‘essentially an ocean of water that the land sits on top of,’’ and urged the court to accept the statutory exemption rather than require a study.
County staff and the county attorney told the court that while state statute and the Texas Administrative Code contain an exemption that can apply in Carrizo‑Wilcox areas, Henderson County’s recently updated subdivision regulations are stricter and did not incorporate that exemption. County counsel recommended either a submitted variance or the full groundwater study to meet the county’s rules.
Commissioners debated timing and precedent. One commissioner said approving the exemption without a variance could open the door to future approvals that would undercut the county’s stricter standards; another emphasized the county’s interest in protecting long‑term water availability and ensuring infrastructure for lots being sold.
In making the motion to disapprove, a commissioner cited the absence of the required groundwater study in the submitted documents. The court’s action included instructions that the applicant may submit a variance application, pay the applicable fee, and return the matter to the court for reconsideration. County staff noted the variance option or a completed groundwater study would allow the court to revisit the plat in an upcoming agenda cycle.
Next steps: the applicant may file a variance and pay the fee to have the item placed on a future agenda, or submit a groundwater study to address the county’s regulatory requirement. The court’s official disapproval was recorded as due to the absence of the required groundwater study under the county subdivision regulations.
