Commissioners deny Forest Trace West Section 3 final plat after residents cite deed-restriction problems

The Montgomery County Commissioners Court voted to deny the final plat for Forest Trace West Section 3 after residents and speakers argued the applicant’s paperwork improperly attempted to terminate long-standing deed restrictions.

Neighbors said the replat would undermine protections recorded in 1957. Kyle Sterling, speaking during public comment, said the original developer’s covenants were drafted to preserve rural, low-density lots and that the replat submission conflicted with those recorded restrictions. “These covenants are to run with land and shall be binding on all parties,” Sterling told the court, pointing to language in the 1957 instruments.

Speakers including Christie Meyer and Albert Verme pressed the court to reconsider a technical notice that earlier indicated the county’s review found no effect on adjacent owners’ property interests. They cited a 9th District Court of Appeals opinion and argued that instruments purporting to terminate restrictions require a specifically prescribed amendment method and, in many cases, the affirmative consent of a majority of lot owners.

County counsel told commissioners that, under state practice, plat review is ministerial when a submission meets subdivision standards and that a county’s approval of a plat generally does not itself extinguish private deed restrictions — but added that private parties retain the right to litigate the validity of the termination documents. The attorney said the developer could pursue mandamus or other remedies if the county withheld approval without a legal basis.

With competing legal views on the record and concern over the statutory 15-day plat ‘shot clock’ that can trigger automatic approval if no action is taken, the court debated deferral, opposition and rescission of motions. After discussion and an attempted rescind, commissioners ultimately reopened the item and voted to deny the plat.

Court staff and the county attorney said the denial stops the shot clock and preserves the private-rights positions that residents say are threatened. The item was recorded as denied; the county did not adopt a legal determination that either validated or invalidated the deed-restriction filings — instead, the court elected to deny the plat and leave any challenge to the courts to private parties.

The county clerk will reflect the court’s action in the minutes; the developer and residents may pursue further legal steps outside of the commissioners court.