Commission denies Brightlight Boulevard final plat over checklist omissions
Staff recommended denial of final plat FP 26‑01 (Brightlight Boulevard Segment 2) because the submittal did not meet checklist requirements; the commission voted unanimously to deny and returned the plat to the applicant with a list of corrections.
The full story
City staff recommended denial of final plat FP 26‑01, a dedication for Brightlight Boulevard Segment 2 intended to serve Sunfield Phase 7 and a planned high school. Senior planner Victor Escamilla listed multiple required corrections including incorrect acreage (right‑of‑way dedication shown as 5.563 acres vs. 6.533 acres in the plat title), missing recorded instrument references for off‑site easements, absent signature blocks and printed names for Sunfield MUD Number 3, and a required force main easement width notation.
Sign up to keep reading.
Your free newsletter brings you what your city council, county, and school board discussed and decided.
Keep reading for free
Create a free account to finish this story and see the video, transcript and key details.
Continue with GoogleContinue with emailAlready have an account? Log in