Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm 11. I'm 10. Yeah, I'm 10. Sorry.

Get this to me. Thank you. Thank you.

You all set? William County Regional Planning Commission is now called to order. We do have a quorum. Do we have any announcement, staff?

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um items number 28, 29, 33, and 34 are on your consent agenda for deferral. And finally, the public meeting to present the draft of the table of uses and the draft regulations for the Arrington Village District that will be created will be held next Wednesday, April the 15th at 6:00 at Arrington Elementary School. The draft of the table of uses and the draft regulations are on your desk and can also be found on the county's website. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Next item will be the minutes for March 19th, 2026. Has everybody had a chance to read the minutes? Do we have any questions or any additions? For approval. Motion for approval. Have a second. Second. Motion made and second. All in favor signify by saying I. Motion carries. Thank you. The next item on the agenda will be the consent agenda. And I understand that Sharon and Keith will be recusing themselves from this. Yes.

Okay. Do as any of the commissioners want to take any of the items separately or shall we hear them as a whole? Seeing none, we'll take it as a whole. All in favor of the consent agenda signify by saying I. We have a motion on this. I'm sorry. Motion to approve for recommendation. Have a motion. Have a second. Second. We have a motion in a second. All in favor signify by saying I. Motion carries. Thank you. Item number 27, Terra Visca Road drainage and erosion control bond update. African present.

Brent Theny representing Jones Company. Um, if do we want to pull up the timeline or you just want me to give an update or It's up there. Yeah, that's it's up there. Um, so for section two, the slope repairs were approved

and sorry, I tried to look on it here. Um, they were approved. We got the letter that has been submitted to Tsquare from the geotech. Um so that has been turned over to Tsquare. Um the biopon regrading um we've checked it twice every week for the last since the last meeting the last couple months. Still too wet. Um we've gone in and dug a hand swell trying to help it drain but it's still too wet. Has about an inch of water. Um has for the last couple months in the bottom of the pond. So, uh, still waiting for that to dry out. Um, we're meeting the engineer on site to look at some stuff for phase one tomorrow. We'll look at that and may propose a different fix to try to overcome the groundwater that's coming into that detention pond. Um the wastewater road we received the bid for the uh if you recall in the last meeting um the new scope of work we received we received a bid for that work. Um we are also looking at an alternative given what that scope of work was uh that will uh get the county's thoughts on we're considering paving that road uh in lie of the gravel and depending on what the county's take is there. Um and then the road core sample report was turned over to the engineer that was completed from the geotech. Um, and if the county doesn't have it yet, they should uh both of those reports uh should be coming or have been turned over. Um, so and we'll see what comes out of that. The counties take on that second phase of the road core report.

Um, so depending on what happens with the road, hopefully we should get the service road built in the next 30 to 45 days. Um, section one, we received as well the bid for that on Tuesday. So, we're going through that bid and we're also that's part of what we're meeting on uh for section one to go through some of those items and talk about some proposed fixes. So, that's on track and we've just got to work through that bid and make sure the scope of work's correct for what was bid. Um, so in terms of timeline on one, I'll know more once we physically start, but right now we've gotten an estimate to do the work. And then trees, the eight trees. Um, I'm meeting a landscaper tomorrow. I think it's actually five trees at the bottom of the burm and three up by the road, not eight down there, but we'll confirm that and they'll get planted in the next week or two. and then happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any questions of the applicant at this time? Thank you. You're welcome. Continuing the old business, item number 28 and 29 were on the consent agenda. Item number 30 is public hearing and no one is signed up for the public hearing. So at this time it' be item number 30 amendment to submit regulations regarding expiration of the flat without security staff.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. We have the amendment up on the screen for you. So, you may recall in recent months we've had several requests to add non-aggenda items to your agenda. And these were requested to approve several final plats whose approval had expired. And the reason these had expired was because the the the they did not require posting of shies. I'll get it out such for infrastructure improvements. And the primary reason for them to expire was that the applicant was unable to acquire the signature for the utility district within those required 60 days to record the plat. So the proposed amendment will increase the amount of time to record these final plats without shy from 60 days to 90 days. And this increased time we believe as the staff will provide the applicant with sufficient time to acquire those required signatures and record the plat. So I just want to point out that currently plats that do require the posting of shies have 90 days to post the shies and then 120 days to record the plat. Staff does recommend approval of the text amendment and if you have any questions I'll be happy to answer.

Thank you. Any questions of staff on this item? Do we have a motion on this item? Move for approval for staff recommendation. I have a motion. Do we have a second? Have a motion to second. All in favor signify by saying I.

Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Item number 31 on the public hearing would be the amendment to article 11 and 23 of the zoning ordinance regarding the use of non-traditional wastewater treatment and disposal systems within the urban growth boundaries. Staff,

thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, in November of 2024, Williamson County and all of the municipalities adopted the Williamson County growth plan. And this growth plan was to ensure the system of the urban growth boundaries function as efficiently and possible. That was one of the goals. Strategy 1A of that growth plan sets forth that the counties and the municipalities will work together to create and implement interimm policies related to development within those UGBS. And the strategy included allowing or prohibiting the use of the wastewater systems within the UGBS. County staff met with the staffs of all of the municipalities to discuss the placement of these systems inside the UGBS and for various reasons the municipalities did not want the systems located within the UGBS and staff does agree with that. So the growth plan revised the boundaries of the municipalities and now includes parcels that are zoned both rural development 5 and rural preservation 5. And the zoning ordinance permits these types of systems within those two districts regardless of whether or not the property is located inside or outside of a UGB. These systems are not permitted in either the MGA1 or MGA5 districts when used in conjunctions with new residential developments. They're also not allowed at all within the municipal growth area hamlet districts, the MGAH districts. I do want to point out that within the MGA1 and MGA5 districts, the uses are allowed when they are serving individual uses such as a school or a church. The text amendment that we're proposing will prohibit these systems on properties zoned RD5 and RP5 when the properties are located within a UGB and when are proposed for use for use for a new residential development. The text amendment also adds the definition of

urban growth boundary to the zoning ordinance. The use of the systems for such as a school or a church within the RP5 district that's whether it's located inside or outside of a UGB will be permitted as they are in the MGA MGA districts. Staff believes the text amendments are consistent with the county's long-standing policy prohibiting the use of these systems within the UGBS for new residential developments. and we recommend approval of the text amendment and that the attached resolution be forwarded to the county commission with a recommendation for adoption. Thank you. Any questions on this item?

What's the practical impact of this like at the sixth grade level? What's the difference between the systems and why within the urban growth boundary now as opposed to not before? So the and Mike jump in when if if I misspeak. So before all of the properties within the urban growth boundaries were zoned either MGA1, MGA5 or MGA Hamlet. With the revision, it now includes properties that are zoned rural preservation 5 or rural development 5. Systems are allowed in those two districts. So in talking to the cities, the retrofitting a non-traditional wastewater system to a municipal system is difficult and costly. And so and the cities did not did not want them in the in the urban growth boundaries. And Mike, did you have anything to add? Well, just I'll I'll just say quickly that the policy for many years has been not to allow um these systems in the growth boundaries except for those individual uses like a church or a school. And that's the same policy that we've continued to have and have now. The only difference is that um now we've got a few areas that are zoned with RD5 or RP5. And so we're just wanting to make sure that the same policy that we've always had is now reflected in this zoning district when they're in the UGBS.

Okay. So this is a matter of cities looking at the UGB thinking about if that ever became part of the city how they would connect to those systems and and that they would um present an impediment to their annexation because you know they don't they don't have those kind of systems. they have public sewer and retrofitting those would be uh difficult. So, um that's just been the the the policy for, you know, many many years. Um the the county staff has always agreed to that and each of the municipalities feel the same way. So,

how would the average homeowner within the UGB feel about this change? Is it going to be more costly, more burdensome, more timely? What would this do for those folks? Uh, I think that most people who are in the UGB will who who want to develop their property want to get annexed and and go on city sewer and then be be have it be developed in conjunction with the city's policies on growth and development. So, um, I think it'll be the same as it always has been for properties within the growth boundary. We've just got some properties that recently added to those growth boundaries and we're just wanting to be consistent across the board.

Okay. If it's a property that doesn't have an interest in being annexed, how are they going to view this? Is it limiting their options? Uh if they don't want to be annexed, they probably don't have designs on developing the property very intensely. And so, um, yeah, they'd be they'd be a little bit more limited because they'd be looking at septic or, um, requesting sewer from the municipalities. Um, but that's, you know, again, that's that's consistent with the way the policyy's been for many years.

Okay. How does this align with what the task force has been working on in the recommendations that are coming for the septic department? Uh it it doesn't have a direct bearing. Although if um if properties in the urban growth boundary develop with septic systems, then it's going to be a lot easier and less costly to do so given the work of the task force. Okay. And this change would not be an impediment to that work. That is correct. Okay.

I have a question. If someone has um a property at the furthest end of the urban growth boundary, you know, not next to the city or whatever municipality on out. Is there an appeal process for um for this um to to get a variance on that? So, this would be a use variance and the board of zoning appeals can't grant a use variance. that we'd have to do an amendment to the zoning ordinance. I see. I think you understand where I'm coming from on that.

Um, what happens to that piece of ground for that property owner? So, they could develop it under the septic. They could do individual septic. Yes, they could still do septic individual on-site septic systems. Yes. And I would just add that these two zoning districts are one unit per 5 acre zoning districts. Um, and so the use of non-traditional systems, you know, isn't very common for low density development like that. It's much more common that that septic systems are used. H

and my my understanding of the question that was just asked uh if you're in that urban growth area uh if the city decides that they want to take that land or take you over you don't have a choice because unless you go to the state for a field right that has nothing to do with us but I mean that's just we have to they if you're in that area it's designated to for the city to be able to take it at some point. Yeah. Now, they they the property owner would have, you know, the ability to say, "I don't want to be annexed." And the and the cities wouldn't automatically be able to annex them, generally speaking.

And there's also a mechanism for people to um request to be removed from the the growth boundaries. They're not set in stone for ever. I wanted to get a point. I think this is what you said before or what I understood was this is how it has been within the UGB. It's just that recently when we redefined those UGB lines a little bit, some properties ended up inside the UGB that are RD5 and RP5 that weren't in before. And so we're not putting an undue hardship on them like this is what we apply to anyone in the UGB. That is correct.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?

No other questions. Do we have a motion on this item? For approval. Motion to approve. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. We'll move to item number two in the concept plan. Concept plan for Willowstone Estates uh containing 25 lots on 186.62 acres located off of Clovercraftoft Road in the fourth voting district. Staff.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, this is the property. We're going to zoom into the two properties located on Clovercraftoft Road real quick. Excuse me. This is the natural resource protection plan on the two properties. There are moderately moderate and very steep slopes. There are slippage soils, substantial woodlands and ponds and creeks with the established waterway natural areas. 83% of the development parcels will remain in open space and 90% of the existing tree canopy will be retained. This is the concept plan. It's located on Clovercraftoft Road. You can see Clevercraft Road there in the red at the top. The property totals 184.62 acres. You can see it outlined in the pink. It does connect between the two sheets there. This is a 25 lot conservation subdivision. You can see the lots there in the dark blue. The lots are between 1 acre and 1.77 acres in size and the overall density is 0.14 units per 1 acre. There is 153.43 43 acres of open space. You can see that they're in the green. The roads will be public and no turn lanes were required for this development. Water is provided by Nolanville College Grove Utility District. Sewer is handled by the Clovercraftoft Acres non-traditional wastewater treatment and disposal system that's located on the adjoining property. And finally, staff recommends approval with the standard conditions outlined in the staff report. I do want to point out that the applicant does desire to revise the concept plan in the near future to add additional lots and that revision, excuse me, revision will require a revision to this concept plan and the wastewater site plan for Clovercraftoft acres. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Is the applicant present? Afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Joshua Denton here on behalf of the applicant and I've got the engineer, Mr. Wilson's here as well. Glad to take any questions y'all may have. So, Mr. I have a couple questions. Sure. So, it's not going to be gated and you don't foresee it to be gated? It will not be gated because we've we've talked with worked with staff and because it connects with that existing development which has public streets that'll that has to stay open. So those so it won't be good.

Okay. And on the revision where would the proposed extra sites be? Is that in the big area at the bottom of the Yeah, it would. I think you see the road that's kind of looks like a T. There's some some the thought is there would be some lots that could potentially go there, but we you'll remember we were here back in February and we didn't have enough capacity. What we've done is now tailor this to the capacity that's available, right? And so that'll take the expansion and that'll obviously be subject to your all's review and approval. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Have a question. If it's you're noting here that the applicant already knows they desire to revise the concept plan like help help me understand why we should approve something tonight when you know you're already going to send us a change. Yeah. It's beca we meet the requirements and we're only asking for 25 tonight. So the I mean something could change and we could decide not to ever ask for more lots

but tonight. So, we've had discussions with staff, been very candid that we think if we can get the expansion approved and all that can work out, we would likely come back and ask for the additional lots, but that may never happen. So, we've got we designed it to what was available and and as we understand it, we meet the criteria. So, that's why we're asking for approval. Any other questions? Seeing none, do we have a motion on this item? Motion to approve first. Second. Have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying I.

Oppose. Motion carries. Thank you. Final plats item 35. Commission recover. You're going to recuse yourself from this. I understand. Keith. Yes. Recused.

Thank you. Final flat review for Telerero subdivision containing 27 lots on 196.93 acres located off of Terra Faroh Road in the fifth voting district. Staff, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The property is located off of Talia Farerero Road shown in red at the bottom of the screen. The development totals 196.63 acres in size and is shown in the dark blue. It contains 27 lots shown in the pink. The purpose of this revision is to make the roads private and gate the subdivision. Water is provided by the Nolanville College Grove Utility District and wastewater is handled by a non-traditional wastewater treatment disposal system. The revised final plat is in order and staff recommends approval with the standard conditions outlined in the staff report. Is your applicant present? Hi, Daniel Walter Tquare. Do

you have anything to add to staff report? Uh, no, sir. Are there any questions of the applicant or staff at this time? Seeing none, do we have a motion on this item? Motion to approve staff recommendation. Second. Have a motion and second. All in favor signify by saying I. opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Is there any further business for the commission at this time? Motion to adjourn. We're ajourned. Quick