Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Comal County to deny cancellation of Summit Estates lots tied to Texas Water Company expansion
Summary
Multiple Summit Estates at Fisher residents told the Comal County Commissioners Court that removing Lots 277 and 278 from the recorded subdivision could violate deed restrictions, harm property values and public safety, and set precedent; 173 property owners say they would be affected. The application is set for the court's June 11 agenda; no decision was made June 4.
Residents from Summit Estates at Fisher pressed the Comal County Commissioners Court to deny a landowner's application to cancel Lots 277 and 278 from the subdivision, arguing the move would interfere with recorded deed restrictions and open the door to industrial development at the entrance to their neighborhood.
"The application submitted to the county states that the proposed cancellation does not interfere with the established rights of property owners within the subdivision. However, we currently have 173 property owners who disagree with that conclusion," said Kate Oth, who spoke on behalf of many residents and asked the court to record their objections and fully evaluate whether owners’ rights would be affected before next week's hearing.
At the hearing William Conrad warned the court the proposed sale and development would place a large water-treatment facility near the subdivision entrance and could create safety and access problems for residents and emergency responders. "It will become a threat to public safety. It will be the place where our school children walk through the middle of an industrial plant," Conrad said, summarizing neighbors' concerns about traffic, construction impacts and emergency response times.
Sarah Garza, president of the Summit Estates at Fisher homeowners association, recounted a timeline of filings and discussions, saying Texas Water Company had previously told the HOA it intended to increase treatment production from "about 100,000 gallons a day" to "1,000,000 gallons a day." Garza cited Texas Property Code sections 232.008 and 232.009 and told commissioners the court must determine whether the cancellation would substantially affect established owners before approving it.
Other residents echoed legal and environmental concerns: Carolyn Andrews said the proposed change could permit wastewater handling practices that would affect downstream Canyon Lake, and Lisa Brigger urged the court to question why a nonresident landowner was seeking to remove lots after 19 years.
The court did not act on the cancellation application at the June 4 meeting; the item is scheduled for consideration on the court's June 11 agenda. Commissioners did not resolve factual disputes in the public comment period; staff or interested parties will be expected to provide studies or analyses referenced by speakers before the formal hearing.
