Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Sewer Easement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

De Soto resident urges council to reconsider sewer easement tied to Grama Limestone development

De Soto City Council · February 6, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Resident Joe Webb told the council that a proposed 60-foot permanent sewer easement for the Grama Limestone development would clear large portions of his wooded 5.4-acre property, cross streams at two points and may require bank stabilization; he urged city engineers to confirm pipe sizing and protections.

During the Feb. 5 De Soto City Council meeting, resident Joe Webb addressed the council under public comment to oppose a proposed sewer main easement that would cross his 5.4-acre property and serve the Grama Limestone development.

Webb said the easement would require removal of trees across a "60 foot wide" corridor spanning the width of his land and estimated the cut would be roughly the depth of the council chamber. He said the proposed main would cross under a stream twice on his property at depths "as much as...16 feet" and was sized at 15 inches in diameter, and he urged the city engineering department to confirm that the pipe is sized appropriately for both the immediate development and possible future users.

Webb described stormwater concerns tied to development of the headwaters area and asked that special care be taken with stormwater retention design to prevent downstream flash flooding and bank erosion. He also raised bank-stabilization and land-restoration expectations, and said the developer's monetary offer for the easement was "not close to satisfactory," noting the permanent nature of the disturbance.

The council received Webb's comments and had no immediate decision in the public-comment period. Staff earlier in the meeting had discussed related infrastructure projects and later agenda items address development agreements; council members did not take action on Webb's concerns during public comment but requested engineering confirmation in later agenda discussion.

Webb offered to meet with staff individually to discuss compensation and restoration, and his remarks were placed on the public record.