Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve Gates Crossing lot revision after landowner raises nuisance and address concerns
Summary
Washington County commissioners approved a minor lot revision to Gates Crossing Subdivision on June 30 after landowner Luis Badar described noise, litter and address confusion tied to a neighboring commercial site. Staff recommended approval and said legal authority to deny was limited; county pledged follow-up on addressing and nuisance options.
Washington County commissioners on June 30 approved a revision to the Gates Crossing Subdivision that increases Lot 8 from about 1.5 acres to 1.75 acres and adjusts setback dimensions, after a nearby landowner pressed the court over noise, truck traffic and address confusion.
Luis Badar, who identified himself as the adjacent landowner, told the court the neighboring commercial site has created persistent noise and litter and that delivery labels and tax records list the same address for both properties. "They've got over 2,000 acres and they had to put it right next to us," Badar said, describing heavy truck movements, lights, cameras and dogs that have crossed onto his property.
County staff recommended approval of the plat revision for Gates Crossing (David Lawrence survey 8-0075361), saying the change moves Lot 8 from roughly 1.5 to 1.75 acres and increases a dimension cited in the plat from about 385 feet to 450 feet. The staff presentation noted the replat meets the county's minimum setback standards and that notice requirements under Texas local government code were satisfied.
A staff member told the court that while residents have a right to submit comments, the commissioner's court generally lacks legal authority to deny a plat that meets statutory requirements: "From a legal standpoint... if they meet the requirements, you have a right to be able to voice your opinion... but at the end of the day, the commissioner's court does not have legal standing to deny," the staff member said.
In response to Badar's complaints about addressing and tax records, staff said the addressing department had sometimes previously allowed owners to select addresses but that addressing protocol now emphasizes sequential numbering by road. Staff committed to follow up with the resident after the meeting and to coordinate with the county appraisal district to correct tax/address records where appropriate.
After public comment and staff responses, the court conducted a voice vote; members answered "aye," and the presiding officer declared the motion carried.
The court's action was procedural: the record shows staff recommended the lot revision and commissioners approved it by voice vote. The court did not record an individual roll-call tally in the transcript.
