Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges court to deny Tres Cruces RV subdivision permit, cites road-safety and regulatory concerns
Summary
At the May 26 Erath County Commissioner’s Court meeting, resident Chad Townsend urged denial of the proposed Tres Cruces RV subdivision, saying County Roads 494 and 495 lack sufficient right-of-way, improved shoulders and would create public-safety hazards; he said variances should not be granted and warned neighbors are prepared to contest approval.
Chad Townsend, who said he has lived adjacent to the proposed development for 10 years, told the Erath County Commissioner’s Court on May 26 that County Roads 494 and 495 are unsafe for the planned Tres Cruces RV subdivision.
"Neither County Road 494 nor 495 possess near enough right of way to even consider approving a permit for the proposed subdivision," Townsend said during the public-comment period. He described both roads as effectively single-lane pavements (about 14 feet) with no improved shoulders and total rights-of-way of 30 to 34 feet, calling the intersections with FM 205 and at 494/495 "very dangerous." Townsend said delivery trucks, garbage trucks and construction vehicles already strain the roads and asked how school buses or emergency vehicles would safely use them if the RV park is approved.
Townsend said he and other adjacent neighbors had already met with county staff — including Mr. Gardner and County Engineer Mr. England — and had raised what he described as multiple potential violations of the county's subdivision regulations, which were amended two years ago. He urged the court not to rely on broad variances and warned that neighbors were "willing to go to the mat regarding public safety and welfare." Townsend also said an RV park at the neighborhood entrance would harm the area’s character and likely lower property values.
The court did not take immediate action on the Tres Cruces matter during public comments. County staff had previously received paperwork related to the subdivision and Mr. Gardner later presented multiple unrelated replat items during the land-development portion of the agenda. Townsend’s remarks were confined to the permitted three-minute public-comment slot and were not followed by a formal hearing or a vote on the developer's application at this meeting.
Why it matters: Townsend’s concerns highlight infrastructure and public-safety questions that can affect whether a county can lawfully approve a subdivision without road improvements or variances. If the court later considers the application formally, the engineering review, right-of-way requirements and any requested variances will be central to the legal and practical evaluation of the project.
What’s next: The developer’s application was discussed with county staff, and any formal application, variance request, or engineer’s recommendation will appear on a future agenda for decision. The court did not announce any immediate follow-up action specific to the Tres Cruces matter at the May 26 meeting.
