Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026/04/01 Workshop Session 3:30 PM R FILED FOR RECORD 2 DATE (3-/7-16, ` 'Y' Off/ O'CLOCK AT M I" K MCQUEEN * *` C 4 O C LERK r, BY C' O` 1•C: BRAZOS COUNTY BRYAN, TEXAS NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA WORKSHOP SESSION BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL MEET IN A WORKSHOP SESSION AS FOLLOWS: MEETING DATE: April 1, 2026 MEETING TIME: 3:30 PM MEETING PLACE: Commissioners Courtroom of the Brazos County Administration Building, 200 S. Texas Avenue, Suite 106, Bryan, TX 77803 1. Call to Order 2. Presentation and discussion of the draft update to the County's Subdivision Regulations. This workshop will feature a presentation by the consultant team, followed by discussion with members of the Commissioners Court and an opportunity for public comment.An interactive board gallery and an additional opportunity to submit written comments will take place after the presentation. 3. Adjourn The Commissioners Courtroom of the Brazos County Administration Building,200 S.Texas Avenue,Suite 106, Bryan,TX 77803 is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available.Any request for sign interpretive services must be made two working days before the meeting.To make arrangements,please call(979)361-4102. �� of *1 r * r c is fj- ciF The following minutes of the Workshop held April 1,2026,have been examined and are approved in open Court this the 19th day of May 2026, in Bryan, Brazos County, Texas. • Duane Peters Bentley Nett es County Judge Commissioner, Precinct 1 Chuck Konderla Fred Brown Commissioner, Precinct 2 Commissioner, Precinct 3 41) Wanda J. Wa . Commissione , ' ecinct 4 Attest: Karen McQueen ( . County Clerk .S 9 :7k , .* ik n q . O O: (7,4 r O c a��L MINUTES AP R I L 1, 2026 BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT WORKSHOP SESSION 1. Call to Order A Workshop Session of the Commissioners' Court of Brazos County, Texas was held in the Brazos County Commissioners Courtroom in the Administration Building, 200 South Texas Avenue, in Bryan, Brazos County, Texas, beginning at 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 1, 2026 with the following members of the Court present: Duane Peters, County Judge, Presiding; Bentley Nettles, Commissioner of Precinct 1; Chuck Konderla, Commissioner of Precinct 2; Fred Brown, Commissioner of Precinct 3; Wanda J. Watson, Commissioner of Precinct 4; Karen McQueen, County Clerk; The attached sheets contain the names of the citizens and officials that were in attendance. 2. Presentation and discussion of the draft update to the County's Subdivision Regulations. This workshop will feature a presentation by the consultant team, followed by discussion with members of the Commissioners Court and an opportunity for public comment. An interactive board gallery and an additional opportunity to submit written comments will take place after the presentation. County Engineer Prarthana Banerji explained that the purpose of this workshop is to gain feedback from the Court and the public on the draft update to the Subdivision Regulations. Ms. Banerji introduced the Project Team from Freese and Nichols, Daniel Harrison, AICP Project Manager, David Jones, AICP Project Planner and Connor Roberts, AICP Project Planner. Mr. Harrison began with the project overview and process for updating the Subdivision Regulations. He shared why the updates were necessary and the timeline anticipated to complete the project. He noted that the goal of this process is to simplify the regulations as much as possible. Mr. Roberts then began his portion of the presentation by detailing the changes made to the updated regulations. Commissioner Watson asked for clarification on the process. Mr. Harrison shared that they are always looking for ways to improve and do it better moving forward. Commissioner Brown stated he would like to see a side-by-side comparison of the current regulations and the updated regulations. He then engaged in discussion with Mr. Harrison on the impact of Senate Bill 2038 as it pertains to the regulations. Commissioner Nettles and Commissioner Konderla also expressed interest in seeing a side-by-side comparison of the current and updated subdivision regulations documents. They then questioned the level of stakeholder engagement in creating the new regulations. Both shared that it is pertinent to involve the builders and developers in this process. Mr. Harrison engaged in additional discussion with the Court. Judge Peters then called for public comment. James Smith, a resident of Precinct 1, addressed the Court in opposition to the subdivision regulations. He spoke specifically about a property issue that he has experienced. County Engineer Prarthana Banerji provided clarification. General Counsel Ed Bull stated that Mr. Smith's property issue is out of the scope of the posted agenda for the Workshop and should be handled at a different time. Bill Lero, resident of Precinct 2, addressed the Court concerning the Subdivision Regulations. Spencer Buchanan, resident of Precinct 2, addressed the Court concerning the Subdivision Regulations. Carey Smith, resident of Precinct 2, declined the opportunity to address the Court concerning the Subdivision Regulations. Kyle Kacal, resident of Precinct 3, addressed the Court concerning the Subdivision Regulations. Chris Barnes, resident of Precinct 2, addressed the Court concerning the Subdivision Regulations. Judge Peters announced that the Project Team from Freese and Nichols will be available to address any questions or concerns following the workshop. They are looking to receive input from builders, developers and the public. 3. Adjourn The Workshop was adjourned at 4:44 p.m. Pg4of/ BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONER' S COURT DAY OF 20 ( 2.6) 34,30 AM , WcrYiio Name Organization (PLEASE PRI T) . (PLEASE PRINT) fg e,i),* 5' LGt aat4, Vx. c iv,rto 4A1 1\) Pccui ru? _KA-- Sic ..4gt/ta Icy v eq MT/ 2 57,44.rkg MAA,,W,A1, ,7g-j J. C-( tA_r c -e'et•s eic .x) lib MIZE Pg of BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONER' S COURT DAY OF \ \ , 20e 13'LG AM/PM, ,[cr(s itop Name Organization (PLAE PRINT) (PLEASE PRINT) . ...J , b „N J A"! ,) arT, 0 Sc_ 5-c u- CAA .to`Tv ne-if 41 (Pr e.A-"K Krell S1 €z' /3(50 (/ 1 6;?r(w« (` NI pla5.A 4L)1k L6cAJs tel (1-S D,-(C / h PH44- x/6.../P4ine Oyi/et 1r e C il7 ap/c/opt-t ei fit y Re- Plizos caul4)/ C3b BVG 1 L2$ ►�< �f �c`c`1, <Pea J t ) PgJ of BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONER' S COURT DAY OF 4J , 20 30 A 11,11PM, /1)4,karp._} Name Organization (PLEASE PRINT) (PLEASE(/_PRINT) �- \ � -9 c`V IV d. N350 c , e o 'mil Hot.„ Zo4/7 -el —A554- 0 ;14 4 / /en 7n ArLrL t4,;,„ Co. Tu4 .E)A-r Chk S--(-)1Ark-141( tT.924 /1�EWrt. LAuy ,v Pecs rr �c)ci y' ACh r/C‘ Ce5COL, E C F\ i7Z7/> cf Pg of 4 BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONER' S COURT DAY OF , 20 3-'3oAM/PM, G(} 5G Name Organization (PLEASE PRINT) (PLEASEPRINT) Pq PrI;(t) IV,c4;re,-t, C))/ °T 1/Pt 5i-e,h , -�L("--t rstz, I/ 76vICQ P,erA OW 12CLPn� S-d-s®v, 7(0 11 O v5& (2-00F iKi-t-z -5 144/ ,-) t1-,,(76,Viz_ Mtt e-tfrA Piti/14) L/14) 6e-001 Cc'nr. _ 41 GCS ClOth Z61 Svc nfl6161 k.c Pet ,2 Cer► LI 6r VIaz, Co`g -dleNdep s e,xvi ces Q-oCS— Ca-4--6t „R.u.r- C ) Ss-4-1/ /2 e// /-J- rcck JJIJi look- ( i Zei) ;.l1- 0 I • ,tisP c)r 0 Brazos County Commissioners Court CITIZEN SPEAKERS FOR WORKSHOP '%C� ��U� S`o� DATE: 11/l .(2 TIME: Name: Precinct: Circle One: �`� 1. r A fogains Concerning S C� 2. 4011111111111 I ) �_ For/Against/Concerning i� � ��� �✓ ' £211d-'fr" ^ For/Against/Concerning 3. JIM, :;; For/Against/Concerning 4. For/Against/Concerning S. omit/ C� For/Against/Concerning 6. For/Against/Concerning 7. For/Against/Concerning 8. For/Against/Concerning 9. For/Against/Concerning 10. S �T E Op * • OF la BRAZOS COUNTY BRYAN, TEXAS DEPARTMENT: NUMBER: DATE OF COURT MEETING: 4/1/2026 ITEM: Presentation and discussion of the draft update to the County's Subdivision Regulations. This workshop will feature a presentation by the consultant team, followed by discussion with members of the Commissioners Court and an opportunity for public comment.An interactive board gallery and an additional opportunity to submit written comments will take place after the presentation. TO: Commissioners Court DATE: 03/16/2026 FISCAL IMPACT: False BUDGETED: False DOLLAR AMOUNT: $0.00 ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Type BZ025694 Subdivision Regulations Update Workshop Agenda Brazos Subdivision Regulations Update Cover Memo (2026.04.01).pdf Workshop Agenda FR E E S E Innovative approaches 11PlaiNICHOLS Practical results Outstanding service 12770 Merit Drive,Suite 900 + Dallas,TX 75251 + 214-217-2200 + FAX 817-735-7491 vww.freese.com Client: Brazos County,Texas Date: 4/1/2026 Project: BZ025694, Subdivision Regulations Update Topic: Subdivision Regulations Update Workshop Brazos County will host a public workshop on Wednesday, April 1, 2026,from 3:30 p.m.to 7:00 p.m. in the Brazos County Commissioners Courtroom (200 S.Texas Avenue, Bryan)to discuss the draft update to the County's Subdivision Regulations.The workshop will include a presentation by the consultant team,a discussion with Commissioners Court members,and an opportunity for public comment.An interactive board gallery and written comment opportunity will follow the workshop presentation. 01. FNI Presentation(In-Person/Streamed) 3:30—4:00 p.m.(30) • Overall Project Schedule/Phasing • Diagnostic Report Overview • High-Level Draft Review • Next Steps 02. Commissioners Court Q/A 4:00-5:00 p.m. (60) • Public Comment • In-PersonNirtual Court Discussion 03. Interactive Board Gallery&Personal Discussions 5:00—7:00 p.m.(120) • Come-and-Go Format, Project Team Available • Boards with More Detailed Overview of Draft Content • Direct Links to Draft Content • Written Comment Opportunity Page 1 of 1 r /�i#., ~ ..., WIXON .,b • © •� . . , : VALLEY e, !' �\ ..,... . . . .____ . ' = ... ":..� "off c�,✓: s. N. . /: ie --,'"( `, I' s/` p" \\` / '. / / :1-1'7'9 ' .._ Illihhn , It .'.. '.‘.' ' ' Brazos County, Texas .R V•ANL; ?y . , , „ . .i. . . . $ . ... , - k� N Subdivision Regulations Update T Court Workshop & Open House I April 1 , 2026 .5\2: ,, .. _, „40.49 , ilk COL`LAGie , It. STATION . 0---,\.„\y",- ,,• Project Team ,1 „_...-:- . 1 _ .r..... . wi =II 47.... 1 le , ` vs, ;r c AR • am► 1 t- Ir lit .' ,,., • 1 / NI Daniel Harrison, AICP David Jones, AICP Connor Roberts, AICP Project Manager Project Planner Project Planner Today's Agenda OPresentation (3:30 — 4:00 p.m.) 0_ Commissioners Court Q/A & Public Comment (4:00 — 5:00 p.m.) co_ Interactive Board Gallery (5:00 — 7:00 p.m.) Presentation Outline 0__ Project Overview and Process 0__ _ Diagnostic Report Overview ._ Draft Subdivision Regulations Overview 4 Wrap-up and Next Steps e / j \. ..1\ C. ' \ {' '� r W I XO N.�` . " i. `/ ,! VALLEY �j r / \ / „loll / / . • / t \/ l -- / ''''/ \ \ \ i 1179 :/ ` - , i. - Project Overview & Process .. Subdivision Regulations Update Court Workshop & Open House I April 1 , 2026 Project Timeline - Diagnostic Report J June 2024 July 2024 Aug. 2024 Sept./Oct. 2024 Oct./Nov. 2024 •.. W49 0 .... .__. PROJECT KICK-OFF STAKEHOLDER DRAFT DIAGNOSTIC COMMISSIONERS COURT REVISE, FINALIZE, BEGIN UPDATING MEETINGS INTERVIEWS REPORT WORKSHOPS AND SUBMIT THE SUBDIVISION DIAGNOSTIC REGULATIONS REPORT Project Timeline - Subdivision Regulations J Oct. 2025 Jan. 2026 Mar./Apr. 2026 May 2026 June 2026 •••.0 10 Cli) Mt VX* .., PROJECT KICK-OFF DRAFT SUBDIVISION IN-PERSON IN-PERSON IN-PERSON MEETINGS REGULATIONS ENGAGEMENT#1 ENGAGEMENT#2 ENGAGEMENT #3 INITIAL INPUT AND SUBMIT FINAL DRAFT COMMISSIONERS EDUCATION TO THE COURT PUBLIC SESSION COMMISSIONERS HEARING AND COURT CONSIDERATION I Diagnostic Report Overview Subdivision Regulations Update Court Workshop & Open House I April 1 , 2026 -J 4 , °a 1 ", `r s `� ilk' \, C., 'R .. • t 1 '' , ^,.,,./ , .. ,` . .,;:e' : . 1 •,t'.. Ark NIP \i\1\KW.)I\ ‘‘,'.' � " / i Table of Contents Document Structure Table of Contents ii Introduction 1 Project Oven'lety ........._....,,...1 Overall Process 1 Key Components of the Diagnostic Report 2 Adopted Plans and Policies 2 • Introduction Bryan/College Station WO Thrxoughiure Concept interior at Agreements ...____.._.._ -... 0 Brazos County Engineering Design Guide tins.._......... ___.._.._..,......._.. __ 4 Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guldelines.......................__...............,...,........, _._._....,... ...,..,.4 Priority Findings and Actions 5 • Adopted Plans a n d Policies 2 Comprehensively update the Subdivision Regulations 2. Revise IIAs with the Cities of Collage Station and Bryan. 5 3. Adopt a County Thoroughfare Plan or addendum to the MPG Thoroughfare Concept. 6 4 Ctearty define the appticabalty of separgte but rented standards and duc o mrnrn 6 5. Revise SCROD as a companion document to the Subdivision Regulation: _._.._....__.-...____7 6. Express and clarify County policy regarding utilities in County right of way 7 7. Include a legal process to establish vesting and fair notice claims 7 • Priority Findings and Actions 8 Consul idate all language governing processes and procedures 8 9. Improve and streampna the process to conatruGC and inspect inlresrructure. 8 10.Revise how the County distinguishes between nirel end urban development types. 9 11.Clarify County drainage requirements and expectarions. 9 12.Study and improve the regulation of floodptains and other drainage infrastructure to address adverse impacts caused by new development .. 9 13.Consolidate and clarify County participation In lnfrastructuia construction and oversizing 10 • • 14-Distinguish between County maintained improvements and HOA maintained improvements. 10 • I n d i v i d u a l Section Findings and 15.Establish a prefeued form of fiscal security fee construction t0 Individual Section Findings and Solutions 11 1. Overall Findings _. __.11 S o l o Lions 2 General ns ois r Artiste 1) 16 ■ 3. Definitions of TermsRequirements 2) 13 4. General Subdivision Reguireme is and Exceptions(Article 3) 23 ■■ 5. General Platting Procedure Article 4) 24 11 ■ Ito- ■ .f■1 1 6- Plan/Plat Types(Article 5)._... ................. _......... ..._ _.... _... _. 26 rrrr• ■�■ ■ ■ 7. Subdivision Categories and Requirements(Article 6) 26 I•• • ` • 7■156 8- Minimum Standards of Design(Article 7) 26 f -—+ • ••■ 9. Private Subdivisions(Article el 30 er i 1�• 10.Traffic Impacts(Article 9) 30 • -•7•• •• 1t.Financial Responsibilities end Guarantees(Article 10) 31 •■ ■ 7 n 12.Construction and Maintenance(Article 111... 31 •• • • 13.Final Construction Approval and Maintenance Acceptance of lnfrastruclure(Article 121 32 1 •Es • Z�i CI IR Page ii FINAL November t8.2024 ■1 • ■ • Table of Contents Subdivision Regulations Diagnostic Report i i i KeyTakeawa : WhyU date? y p _______ ....._ ,c.„.„„ Bottom Line: (§) , „ The County faces frequent challenges, inconsistent Brazos County Subdivision Regulations . enforcement, and long-term maintenance risks if the regulations Brazos County,Texas comprehensively are not Mk Subdivision Regulations modernized. El PY1. .9l] •tit. . ' {4 ElW i:5%.:••: KeyTakeawa : WhyU date? v p �,,� ,--\ Bottom Line: ,fig.. ‘. ., - .. .p. ,‘ \ .,....., 4 .. The County Faces frequent ` # E .aIA -` . ' challenges, inconsistent -'- ;;_.fe- ,,- , v- -, ti, enforcement, and long-term 1 ` •'' � `' maintenance risks if the regulations ; r r ' . ,;,, ,.�, .„ • 1O are not comprehensively °'; � 0 ,,�. {a* ,, . , ` modernized. ,�' '`N `` 'v. " ` , k = � � � �, . .. i .. � .fib 'f rr �j x .+� i°�4 y. .. (Ti ivy y 1r t• , a r '` t 1 �L �- • '' ` �-i July 2019 KeyTakeawa : WhyU date? , . . , . - ,,,,... i , . . . , y p ,, \\,....:,, (dr *.. i v,..............., , . N `% , -`• • Bottom Line: w „ .„ %f J , The County faces frequent j .. - f .4` challenges, inconsistent -6�%, `rs"-!"I` ; lit'' enforcement, and long-term ;,' -•TA , - ,F' fir , maintenance risks if the regulations �• !4 , ` _, fi are not comprehensively _;r�` � T: modernized. - _ r ., f f l � re� .. " st' .i. E ` •s.-;�. . - N''. Feb 2021 4 -� a ., -c.: , .. �. � . +�.` • x 1, 0AirT.J . Key Takeaway: Why Update? Bottom Line: isc Y, tit', , �,, \ ,kA ,�,., The County faces frequent 't, ��` F'0- \'" challenges, inconsistent >, ,•��`%� •.' _< A' '•'" ° ,\ �: ; enforcement, and long-term ,�, %.�,a:` j ` tmaintenance risks iF the regulations ` , are not comprehensively ' :.• 4, iN , . '+ -. �' • ' ` r s, ', ,• ` modernized. ''` ` ' t ' ! itraj „y 144 N c"r �r r . � �w r Ttr .--5. .:e. • k. �, ` r ` May 2023 07 T. KeyTakeawa : WhyU date? y p • Regulations are organizationally inconsistent and difficult to administer • Multiple overlapping documents create confusion: Bottom Line: • Subdivision Regulations • Brazos County Engineering Design Guidelines (BCEDG) The County Faces Frequent • Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines (BCSUDG) challenges, inconsistent • Interlocal Agreements (ILAs) enforcement, and long-term maintenance risks if the regulations • Current code does not Fully reflect: are not comprehensively • Recent changes in Texas law modernized. • Annexation reform • HB 3167 alternative platting process • Unclear approval authority and inconsistent procedures • Infrastructure standards sometimes exceed the County's maintenance Eli` . ,ID capacity Wt i ❑ °: fJ Key Takeaway: Governance and Jurisdictional Conflicts Bottom Line: :. , We're doing our part to create one r - clear process, accountable authority, .�c, -,,5 and applicable standard. '" A 1 , --\,� ' dr x 1 BRAZOS COUNTY CITIES Bryan ENalarnI[A Z Jun,„,,„ ;,",,q BRYAN co ga SthtY E.tralannonai Juristlirlion O 1kEI ll.ci r'.'..'',.'-%.!: . •,C " 3.. COW,Stalon NavasoExlrale rllora Jur saklbn • , .:-.:44 Nunen is E.tralerrine JurisOcSU - .,. " Navasde BRAZOS COUNTY BOUNDARY F . i MEW.orV aY Citalnns r.. '''• . .,. +�►�i E . Key Takeaway: Governance and Jurisdictional Conflicts • ILAs no longer reflect current law or practice. • Hybrid plat review process in ETJs creates: • Conflicting standards Bottom Line: • Different review timelines • We're doing our part to create one Unclear accountability clear process, accountable authority, • Cities often review infrastructure that they do not maintain. and applicable standard. • County maintains infrastructure but does not have full control of platting decisions. • Recommended actions: • Revise ILAs with Bryan and College Station •1 • Align ETJ review authority with infrastructure maintenance responsibility r r Ir...„.,,...: • Clearly define which standards apply (County vs. BCSUDG vs. BCEDG) .F.A • Update processes to reflect modern annexation limitations l] o!: Key Takeaway: Transportation and Infrastructure Bottom Line: There are risks to unplanned transportation systems, including K. substandard roads and long-term . ,,". w t .. . " taxpayer burdens. 'R � •' - •-. �` % I ,i 1 • -- °1®���I ' .v t�f - - .,, . _ . •1. -- ti• w:. . ,� ref2007 1 . :f Key Takeaway: Transportation and Infrastructure Bottom Line: , , There are risks to unplanned transportation systems, including substandard roads and long-term ; '^ taxpayer burdens. _ la 1111 MU .-R Eirtr r •1 1 :• / 2018 r� , O 1 "r ' •o r Key Takeaway: Transportation and Infrastructure 1 i 5. Bottom Line: There are risks to unplanned { transportation systems, including substandard roads and long-term taxpayer burdens. x, ; , .'�` Q, '<. S' t: _ rgi 1...w.d. 2022 Key Takeaway: Transportation and Infrastructure • General infrastructure concerns: • Boundary road improvement is inconsistently enforced Bottom Line: • Street alignment continuation unclear • Secondary access thresholds may be too high (150-lot trigger) There are risks to unplanned transportation systems, including • Inconsistent County participation in road oversizing substandard roads and long-term taxpayer burdens. • Recommended actions: ui • Adopt a County Thoroughfare Plan i { e� 1%•• • Collaborate with MPO to update the plan to include collectors ' • Update regulations to align with the adopted roadwayhierarchy 9 9 P 1 STaT • Clarify right-of-way dedication and formal acceptance process r r •9❑ yN.-,i-!.4:4-. i,..., . r �r T fz,� .�T,ti �r Key Takeaway: Drainage, Utilities, and Applicable Standards e.I.I. : ;`"—- a �1 Bottom Line: — _ _ _ Be transparent and upfront regarding - - --_ :� -a..." 1 the County's standard and 4.- 1t ,.w expectations for drainage, utility, and �; transportation infrastructure. �`�� .., . , '' ; ur �.. wry 5 , Key Takeaway: Drainage, Utilities, and Applicable Standards • Drainage and Flooding: • Inconsistent floodplain and drainage standards (BCEDG vs. BCSUDG) • Reports of recently built developments experiencing flooding Bottom Line: • Unclear detention and maintenance responsibility Be transparent and upfront regarding the County's standard and • Utilities in rights-of-way: expectations for drainage, utility, and • Current prohibition creates relocation delays and conflicts transportation infrastructure. • Needs clarified, practical administrative framework • Private vs. public infrastructure standards and maintenance: • Clarify what the County will and will not maintain, and what the applicable construction standard is • Consider more private streets for localized roads "i • Consider increased fiscal surety requirements to protect taxpayers Key Takeaway: Process Reform and Implementation pEVELOPMEPJT CENTER _. ,.. Bottom Line: ROAD k� ANO/v1lX OEPARZlM '� , The rewrite is both structural and _. 1_= legal, and is intended to be user- \., 1 Friendly and defensible. ,\ , ► , ' ..jil\ , r• •1 61r 1 1 �01• 1{••,O�• Key Takeaway: Process Reform and Implementation FIGURE 2:REVIEW PROCESS FOR CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPLICATIONS FIGURE 3:CONSTRUCTION AND PLAITING PROCESS AIWILICART 111110101WWWWALOF A IAYMRF FYI DEwor+sweat Iapww.P.pfAsum.DOD...,d. ha e..l IN taeammas.fP.cam ( wwro.a.111: ...».1.......;,...aan,u I l /rnIWMPURInsaaM\AYpOENF1ARMgle+MOR I ,cants..,w.reee...wl...r,.ad lsompia A..w Bottom Line: ONtEENE.CNE KK 's mat OW. •County Actions . .. �•• .nt�n�r�tr.r,i PROFE Sr URa rER ernw ' . uWO C3 App4:CN.Actwn. 1 I MIL .,•„ •,"n The rewrite is both structural and .. .aa 4 µOMO.n legal, PUT.9.0.11110 a�Nar en """` and is intended to be user- Dt re*. 1El.lf ma •.e,r.,.•,•.• .0.1... ",9, .YtKan of .ga.dr„a Friendly and defensible. - n .aaa..faPa..,. .�e.R^ . ,.L "" y° brv,v+,twmnagnnA to .TO A.. >..tPK�A qawWwon ow.all If•too.. a,.O.Nro ..TI.1s„D_OM.D... a .Ar..�Ne) a..,,,f, 1 «..t,uena..,AN c......14.1.JC ..,.NT A.«oN„o. a. +'VINISIO EAI. 111.1.11.1.6 nw unit :Net N.nfa ea.Tta.taf PLAID .H.KeDMa.1.11.TAN 5 uNn bLaa9 staff 1.1,1111.12,11. Lt..at P....e w.lon..u..e w..avo.on OF..w,sc ,...e,P `•: .NYwR.s.R.NI~�..NMYNE.Y.AAiW�...AMRa 1 Chad Continued of Next Pape 4 tr ' Itart«.w.=.+s,Rap..er....e...i..... ~T Key Takeaway: Process Reform and Implementation • Major legal updates needed: • Establish vesting and permit clarity (Chapter 245) • Adopt HB 3167 alternative plat process • Align with mandatory approval timelines Bottom Line: • Suggested administrative improvements: The rewrite is both structural and legal, and is intended to be user- • Centralized approval authority matrix Friendly and defensible. • Consolidated procedures section • Flowcharts and graphics For clarity • Clear expiration timelines and extension procedures • Improved inspection and third-party review authority • Financial protections: • Strengthen Fiscal security requirements *• CI • Clarify cost-sharing and proportionality standards 4It.•;,t ; • Protect the County from overextending participation obligations Draft Subdivision Regulations Overview Subdivision Regulations Update Court Workshop & Open House I April 1 , 2026 / ► COLLEGE STATION V` i fr, / .+�^ Document Structure Contents Section 1.General Provisions....._».._...._..___ _........_._.»_.._»._»...._._.__.._....._......_...-..1.1 1.01. Title 1.1 1.02. Authority. 1.1 1.03. Purpose and Applicability 1.1 1.04. Effective Date. 1.2 1.05. Special Provisions,Enforcement,and Violations. 1.2 Section 1 . General Provisions 1.07. Sever Confl ing Provisions. 1.4 • 1.07. 1.4 Section 2.Administration and Review Procedures.»......._..,...... ..._.._...._...................»." 2.5 2.01. Decision-Making Authority. 2.5 2.02. Pre-Application Procedures. 2.6 • Section 2. Administration and Review 2.03. Application Processing. 2.6 2.04. Application and Inspection Feea. 2.7 2.05. General Application Review end Action Procedures 2.10 Procedures Section 3.Platting and Construction Procedures.....„..„.„.."..__........_.__._.".___...._.»3.19 3.01. General Provisions 3.19 3.02. Subdivision Approval Procedures. 3.25 3.03. Subdivision Construction Procedures 3.37 3.04. Subdivision Application Types. 3.43 • Section 3. Platting and Construction Procedures Section 4.Subdivision Design Standards._._ *....._.._ ...._...___._.__. 4.59 4.01. Subdivision Categories and Specific Requirements 4.59 4.02. Adequate Public Facilities and Infrastructure 4.60 4.03. Privately Owned and Maintained Facilities 4.61 Section 4. Subdivision Design Standards 4.04. Water and Wastewater Facilities and Infrastructure. 4.64 • 4.05. Private Utility Installation Requirements. 4.66 4.06. Lot Type and Design Standards. 4.68 4.07. Road Standards and Construction 4.70 4.08. Drainage Standards. 4.87 • Section 5. Definitions Section 5.Definitions...._.._........_..._._. ._....... .. _._. .". 5.91 • 5.01. Terms Beginning With"A"Through"E" 5.91 •••• g~�' 'i ■ 5.02. Terms Beginning With'F"Through"I" 5.9E1 ."r •0 ;on "IC'5.03. Terms Beginning With" "Through"0" 5.91 �.., 5.04. Terms Beginning With"P"Through"T 5.91 • ' .J''• 5.05. Terms Beginning With"U"Through"Z" 5.91 •f 1•o i .4o }; 4a Al N • •: • • ��'=r • I. I, I Mrp• • .0 r _• r' . 3.25.2026 Brazos County Subdivision Regulations Page iii Section 1 . General Provisions • Legal Foundation, enforcement authority, and Section Outline overall purpose Sec. 1.01. Title Sec. 1.02. Authority • What does this section do? Sec. 1.03. Purpose and Applicability • Establishes the County's legal authority under Texas Sec. 1.04. Effective Date Sec. 1.05. Special Provision, law (TLGC Chapters 232, 242, 245, Transportation Enforcement, and Code) Violations Sec. 1.06. Conflicting Provisions Sec. 1.07 Severability • Defines when a plat is required outside city limits . • Sets the purpose: orderly growth, public safety, infrastructure quality, and fiscal responsibility i4n1 14 Section 1 . General Provisions • What does this mean for residents? Section Outline • Reiterates the purpose of the regulations to protect taxpayers from inheriting substandard development Sec. 1.01. Title • Provides enforcement tools for the County Sec. 1.02. Authority Sec. 1.03. Purpose and • What does this mean for developers? Applicability Sec. 1.04. Effective Date • Clarifies when platting is required Sec. 1.05. Special Provision, • Establishes vesting protections under Chapter 245 (permits governed by rules in effect Enforcement, and Violations at time of filing) Sec. 1.06. Conflicting Provisions • Confirms minimum standards and identifies when more restrictive standards apply Sec. 1.07. Severability • What does this mean for County leadership/staff? • Preserves enforcement authority (civil and criminal remedies) • Protects the fiscal stability of the County • Clarifies ETJ coordination and conflicts with other agencies e,_ a ,yea Section 2. Administration and Review Procedures • How applications are processed, timelines, and Section Outline decision authority Sec. 2.01. Decision-Making Authority • What does this section do? Sec. 2.02. Pre-Application Procedures • Establishes clear decision-making authority Sec. 2.03. Application Processing Sec. 2.04. Application and • Creates formal completeness review within 10 Inspection Fees Sec. 2.05. General Application business days Review and Action Procedures • Requires action on complete applications within 30 business days • Allows third-party plan review when needed • Establishes expiration timelines for dormant projects o =o Section 2. Administration and Review Procedures • What does this mean For residents? Section Outline • Transparent timelines and predictable review process • Public notice requirements For replats, cancellations, and variances Sec. 2.01. Decision-Making Authority • Appeals to the Commissioners Court remain available Sec. 2.02. Pre-Application Procedures • What does this mean For developers? Sec. 2.03. Application Processing Sec. 2.04. Application and • Clear deadlines and predictability: 10-day completeness determination, 30- Inspection Fees day decision window Sec. 2.05. General Application • Defined appeal rights Review and Action Procedures • What does this mean For County leadership/staff? • Compliance with state-mandated timelines (reduces legal exposure) • Ability to use third-party reviewers when staff capacity is limited • Expiration provisions (2-year dormancy, 5-year complete application limit) no • DeFined vesting rules under Chapter 245 o y M1r/e Section 3. Platting and Construction Procedures • How subdivisions are approved, built, bonded, and accepted • What does this section do? Section Outline • Establishes two development paths: Sec. 3.01. General Provisions • Conventional sequence Sec. 3.02. Subdivision Approval • Alternative HB 3167 process Procedures • Requires fiscal surety before recordation Sec. 3.03. Subdivision Construction Procedures • Defines plat/plan types: Sec. 3.04. Subdivision Application • Preliminary Plan Types • Final Plat • Simplified Plat • Replat • Amending Plat • Cancellation Plat • Clarifies plat exemptions (agriculture, family transfers, >10-acre tracts, etc.) °," • Requires formal inspection milestones before acceptance Section 3. Platting and Construction Procedures • What does this mean For residents? • Roads must be inspected before County acceptance Section Outline • 2-year maintenance bond protects against premature road failure Sec. 3.01. General Provisions • Required public notice for replats and cancellations Sec. 3.02. Subdivision Approval Procedures • Simplified Plat option for small subdivisions Sec. 3.03. Subdivision Construction Procedures • What does this mean for developers? Sec. 3.04. Subdivision Application Types • Clear development sequences and defined steps • Defined alternative approval path under HB 3167 • Defined construction inspection milestones • Ability to phase development • Defined bond forms (bond, cash, letter of credit) D Yu : Section 3. Platting and Construction Procedures • What does this mean for County leadership/staff? • Minimum access standards and subdivision connectivity Section Outline • Construction bond protects public funds Sec. 3.01. General Provisions • Maintenance bond ensures roads don't fail immediately after Sec. 3.02. Subdivision Approval acceptance Procedures Sec. 3.03. Subdivision Construction • Authority to collect bonds if improvements are not completed Procedures Sec. 3.04. Subdivision Application • Right-of-way dedication standards Types • Developer participation contracts allowed (limited County share) • Clear ETJ handling fit rl ST"?eFo. Section 4. Subdivision Design Section Outline Sec. 4.01. Subdivision Categories Standard s and Specific Requirements • Infrastructure standards: roads, drainage, utilities, lot design, traffic Sec. 4.02. Adequate Public Facilities and • What does this section do? Infrastructure Sec. 4.03. Privately Owned and • Urban vs. Rural subdivision classifications Maintained Facilities • Urban = any lot under 1 acre Sec. 4.04. Water and Wastewater Facilities and • Rural = all lots 1 acre or larger Infrastructure • Requirements for: Sec. 4.05. Private Utility Installation • Roads and right-of-way dedication Requirements • Traffic impact studies Sec. 4.06. Lot Type and Design Standards • Drainage and detention Sec. 4.07. Road Standards and • Water and wastewater service Construction Sec. 4.08. Drainage Standards • Utility placement • Lot frontage and access • "Rough proportionality" standards For developer participation in off-site infrastructure • Conditions under which infrastructure may (or may not) be accepted � �; for County maintenance Section 4. Subdivision Design Section Outline Sec. 4.01. Subdivision Categories Standard s and Specific Requirements Sec. 4.02. Adequate Public • For residents: Facilities and Infrastructure • Public safety and emergency access Sec. 4.03. Privately Owned and • Secondary access required for larger subdivisions Maintained Facilities Sec. 4.04. Water and Wastewater • Dead-end roads and culs-de-sac are limited Facilities and • Minimum road design standards ensure emergency vehicle access Infrastructure Sec. 4.05. Private Utility • Traffic and congestion Installation Requirements • Developments generating significant traffic must complete Traffic Impact Analyses Sec. 4.06. Lot Type and Design • Mitigation is required when a development materially worsens traffic Standards Sec. 4.07. Road Standards and • Flooding and drainage Construction Sec. 4.08. Drainage Standards • Detention must be designed for 2-, 10-, and 100-year storms • Developers are responsible for maintaining detention ponds • Infrastructure quality • Roads must meet defined engineering standards • Private subdivisions must clearly disclose maintenance responsibility , Yt a' Section 4. Subdivision Design Section Outline Sec. 4.01. Subdivision Categories Standard s and Specific Requirements For developers: Sec. 4.02. Adequate Public • Facilities and Infrastructure • Clear classifications (e.g., Urban vs. Rural) for predictability and Sec. 4.03. Privately Owned and potential County ownership and maintenance Maintained Facilities Sec. 4.04. Water and Wastewater • Right-of-way and thoroughfare requirements Facilities and Infrastructure • Required dedication along abutting roads Sec. 4.05. Private Utility • Reservation authority tied to Thoroughfare Plan Installation Requirements • Clear rules for stub-outs and connectivity Sec. 4.06. Lot Type and Design Standards • Objective methodology Sec. 4.07. Road Standards and Construction • Proportionality protections Sec. 4.08. Drainage Standards • Developer contribution to off-site infrastructure must be "roughly proportionate" • Appeal process available if infrastructure cost allocation is disputed 0 0 6a i±i3 Section 4. Subdivision Design Section Outline Sec. 4.01. Subdivision Categories Standard s and Specific Requirements • For County leadership/staff: Sec. 4.02. Adequate Public Facilities and • Protecting taxpayers Infrastructure • Developers must build infrastructure to standard before acceptance Sec. 4.03. Privately Owned and Maintained Facilities • Rough proportionality framework limits County exposure Sec. 4.04. Water and Wastewater • Drainage systems generally remain privately maintained Facilities and Infrastructure • Right-of-way reservation authority protects future mobility planning Sec. 4.05. Private Utility • Long-term maintenance control Installation Requirements • County acceptance of roads is optional, not automatic Sec. 4.06. Lot Type and Design • Private subdivisions must demonstrate financial mechanisms for maintenance Standards • Collector and arterial road protections maintain network integrity Sec. 4.07. Road Standards and Construction • Growth management Sec. 4.08. Drainage Standards • Authority to require boundary road improvements proportionally • Controls landlocking and ensures future connectivity • Legal defensibility through frequent references El CI • Infrastructure standards aligned with BCS Unified Design Guidelines where applicable. a' %�/i i:� / :�i* ,. ,�� ; C O L L'E G E s 1•, / STATI\ON { �/A. �s° 1/4 fi� fl �7 > , j• y j 5.. < ' x h 2;tr.‘4,:ic..;1/4\s„,,. 1 Wrap- up & Next Steps Subdivision Regulations Update Court Workshop & Open House I April 1 , 2026 Project Timeline Oct. 2025 Jan. 2026 Mar./Apr. 2026 May 2026 June 2026 11 411.4) CO m aX,* ... PROJECT KICK-OFF DRAFT SUBDIVISION IN-PERSON IN-PERSON IN-PERSON MEETINGS REGULATIONS ENGAGEMENT#1 ENGAGEMENT#2 ENGAGEMENT#3 INITIAL INPUT AND SUBMIT FINAL DRAFT COMMISSIONERS EDUCATION TO THE COURT PUBLIC SESSION COMMISSIONERS HEARING AND COURT CONSIDERATION I Ivor . 4 ,t. ,,. C '.J/, - 0„,t:‘,.• ...,----, BRYAN\ 1. /;:e. 1144%4, S'_,� • I l I 474.4,1P ,.....,.., , , _ . 444 ThankYou !, -T .. + ,, it iY, •.�^� ��l'LEG i �e )! ,_<< t STATItO Subdivision Regulations Update � � . 9 P Court Workshop & Open House I April 1 , 2026 1. ' , eTh A A