Residents and Habitat for Humanity seek clarity on 1906 Bluebonnet (Gooch) subdivision plat

At a special City of Mason commission meeting April 9, residents and representatives of Habitat for Humanity pressed the commission for clarity on whether a 1906 subdivision plat for the Bluebonnet Place (Gooch Addition) remains in effect and whether the city can require a replat before building permits are issued.

Brian Wright told the commission he "hopes the City and the Commissioners will be able to work with Habitat for Humanity to move forward," reflecting community interest in resolving the matter so housing work can proceed. Sue Pledger, representing the Ministerial Alliance, thanked the city for placing the item on the agenda. Jess Irwin, introduced as president for Mason County Habitat for Community, asked multiple procedural questions, including whether the 1906 subdivision plat is still effective, whether the building official has authority to require a replat, and what the status is of streets platted in 1906.

Surveyor and owner/attorney Josh Leamons presented historical maps of the subdivision showing changes in street layouts from the 1950s to the 1970s and argued that "there is no requirement for a replat in the City ordinance or even mention a replat." Leamons also discussed center-line title principles, saying a property owner who owns land on both sides of a street can seek center-line title.

City attorney Charlie Zech told the commission "the 1906 Good Second Edition subdivision plat is a valid plat," but said that while the plat contains language that dedicated streets in a qualified way, he has not determined that the City formally accepted those streets. Zech stated that heirs of the original property may still hold title to some street parcels because they were never conveyed to the City, and he advised that ultimate boundary and title questions are matters for the courts. Zech also said the planning-and-zoning appeal process and board-of-adjustment jurisdiction do not apply to building-permit decisions in this instance.

The commission did not take formal action on the item at the meeting. The record indicates competing legal and factual claims—about the continued validity of the 1906 plat, whether streets were accepted by the City, and whether a replat is required—remain unresolved and, according to the city attorney, may require judicial determination.