Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ellis County denies variance for Trails at Hidden Creek after resident, engineering concerns
Summary
The Ellis County Commissioners Court unanimously denied a developer variance request for the Trails at Hidden Creek subdivision after a county engineer warned of problematic soils and a nearby resident raised road‑safety concerns for 13 families who use the route as their only access.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At its regular meeting the Ellis County Commissioners Court voted unanimously to deny a variance request for the Trails at Hidden Creek development, citing geotechnical risks and neighborhood safety concerns.
Alberto Morris, the county's Director of Development, presented the variance request for parcel ID 274632183403, which asked to waive a cement‑stabilized flex base requirement in the county’s standard construction details. County staff and the county engineer recommended denial after reviewing additional materials submitted by the applicant.
County engineer Zach Garrick summarized the geotechnical report, saying the plasticity index was "over their range 20 to 29," well above typical thresholds. He said the report showed potential for swelling and shrinkage that could produce "a 2 inch vertical rise in the foundations" and that requiring a cement‑stabilized base would help mitigate that movement and protect the subgrade.
Resident Marie Kelly, who lives at 140 Buchanan Drive, told the court that 13 families in the area oppose a substandard road for the new subdivision because a nearby tank leaks and the road frequently holds standing water. "With 51 new houses coming in...that's going to be a lot of heavy big trucks carrying in building supplies," she said, adding that the existing road is narrow and is the neighborhood's only way in and out.
Commissioner Butler moved to deny the variance; Commissioner Ponder seconded. The court voted in favor: Commissioners Lane Grayson, Commissioner Stinson, Commissioner Butler and Commissioner Ponder all voted yes. The variance request under item 1.4 was denied.
The decision preserves the county’s road‑construction standard for the site; staff had noted the application remained short 10 feet of a required dedication in a separate replat matter and had circulated notices and received opposition letters.
