Municipal Sewer Vs. On Site Wastewater Treatment
in the Cross Timbers Conservation Development Areas
Q&A by former Mayor Lori DeLuca - 2006
(letter from former Mayor Rick Lust follows)
Why did the prior Master Plans prohibit municipal sewer in the Cross Timbers Conservation Development District?
- to preserve long-valued unique natural assets and ecologically sensitive areas
- to maintain residential density
- to prevent urbanization
- to prevent additional flooding, drainage, erosion and contamination issues that are already inherent in this area
- to reduce infrastructure expenses and maintenance
Limiting municipal sewer has been a successful land planning tool in scenic, rural areas throughout the US.
The density issue and the sewer issue cannot be separated because one controls the others.
If costly sewer lines and lift stations were built, does the wastewater treatment plant have enough capacity to serve this area?
The expansion of the wastewater treatment plant was not designed to accommodate development in the Cross Timbers area. The extra capacity at the wastewater treatment plant was earmarked mostly for future development in the Lakeside Business District. (However, speculative interests continue to demand sewer.)
Land investors pay taxes. Shouldnt they get sewer service?
Taxes don't pay for sewer service, user fees do. The town's general fund is funded mostly by tax revenue and is separate from the utility fund, which is funded mostly by user fees. If someone doesn't have sewer service, they are not paying anything toward sewer infrastructure or improvements. Same for water.
Are there some older septic systems that arent working as well as they should?
Most citizens view older, failing septic systems as a normal home maintenance expense that the town shouldn't be expected to fix with the costly extension of sewer service. Other septic problems are due to inappropriate design, installation, or maintenance. Some of the septic systems for the older lakeside vacation houses were not designed for the heavy use by today's full time occupants. The 2001 Master Plan specifically addressed this problem with plans for a small, environmentally-friendly treatment facility located within the Cross Timbers area and designed just to serve the older homes that don't have the land available for proper onsite septic systems. The minimum 2 acre lot designation was adopted with the 1994 Master Plan specifically to prevent more of these types of problems.
There were ongoing problems over the years with the treatment plant that serves the mobile home park and the All-In-One center, but that plant was completely replaced with a new system that has been working properly.
Beginning in 2006, and periodically, the same rumor is repeated by development interests demanding sewer in Cross Timbers. An information request revealed there were no real issues with septic systems, either contamination or EPA involvement.
UPDATE: In 2013 the Hayden administration allowed 1/2 acre lots for clustering, stating the state allowed aerobic systems for that size.
Isn't sewer service better for the environment?
Sewer lines and higher density housing are actually less environmentally friendly than properly working septic systems. We need the trees, open space, and other natural amenities to soak up storm water and filter it before it goes into Lake Grapevine.
Do the people who live in the Cross Timbers area want sewer service?
Only one resident attended any of the 2006 Master Plan meetings claiming that sewer service is needed in the Cross Timbers area, yet he admittedly also had a development interest that would require sewer just because of the higher density he wanted. There has been no demand by existing homeowners for sewer service. However, land investors have always promoted it as a way to increase housing density and accommodate more intense commercial uses. Most homeowners dont want the area torn up to install sewer lines or the high density housing that will follow. They also don't want to pay sewer connection costs and monthly fees for a service they dont need or want.
Wellington and Bridlewood neighborhoods have residential lots smaller than two acres. Shouldn't land investors with property nearby be allowed the same housing density?
The town has planned for a wide variety of housing options. The land investors who unsuccessfully sued the town for increased density now argue that since higher density housing is nearby, they should have the same density. Each investor could continue to use the "next door" argument to keep increasing density all the way west to I-35W. We have good transitions in place now. Along the northern part of FM 1171, the smaller Bridlewood Remington Park lots transition into the larger Bridlewood Farms and Saddle Oaks developments, and then two acre lots are planned beyond that. On the south side of the road, the future commercial development at Bruton Orand transitions into planned one acre lots on the Voirin property and then two acre lot designations beyond that. If the extension of sewer is approved, keeping those transitions in place and managing future growth will be impossible.
Update: In 2014 the Hayden administration allowed for 1/2 acre lots next to Saddle Oaks. 700 trees were lost with heavy grading.
Will traffic congestion be worse if higher density housing is approved?
More people mean more cars. We have very limited opportunities to expand our roadway system to accommodate higher density residential. While some roads can be widened, there is very little opportunity for new thoroughfares or access areas because of the lake. The majority of all traffic eventually funnels onto FM 1171, FM 2499, and/or FM 3040. Additionally, much of our traffic comes from outside of Flower Mound and those areas will also continue to grow and increase traffic on our roadways.
Would high density housing affect development impact fees?
Our Master Plan gives us the legal foundation to collect impact fees for infrastructure improvements. If we drastically alter our Capital Improvement Plan in order to add major new sewer projects and the other infrastructure necessary to accommodate increases in housing density, these impact fees will increase significantly for those who want to build in our community. Many already complain that these fees are too high. The other option would be to return to the days of increasing property taxes so that current homeowners and businesses pay for the costs associated with new development. Just the cost to extend sewer service into the Cross Timbers area is estimated at $500 million (2006 valuation.)
If office space isnt in demand right now, why not change property designated for office space to apartments or condominiums?
Thousands of apartments and condos are being requested because some investors have claimed that office space is not "currently viable", but condos and apartments are. Most of us remember the condo glut and bust of the 1980's. That's why it's important to continue the goals in the 2001 Master Plan for quality-driven development, rather than market-driven development. The current Master Plan calls for a good mix of residential, commercial, office, and retail development. If we change plans every time the market changes, we will not have this good mix, which is needed for a broad, healthy, balanced tax base. Our goal shouldn't be to build out as fast as we can, but to build out the best that we can.
Dont we need lots of apartments and condominiums to attract businesses?
Some developers claim that high density housing is required to attract businesses. Our town already has extremely desirable residential demographics and a rapidly expanding commercial tax base. More importantly however, is that Flower Mound is not an island. We have lots of apartments and condos all around us in Lewisville and Grapevine. When businesses perform population radius studies, they use all the population within a certain mileage radius, not just within our town borders.
******************
In an email to the Town dated June 10, 2006 former Mayor Rick Lust explained the important of prohibiting sewer in this area and his argument prevailed then, as it does today. The letter was in response to speculator requests to study municipal sewer for the area even though it was prohibited in the prior Master Plans as a preservation tool.
Sewer and the Master Plan (response to 2006 Master Plan Review)
Rick Lust - June 10, 2006
(Mayor 1988-1990)
Dear Mayor and Members of the Council,
I just read about the master plan steering committee and how they wandered off their charge of the original four tasks assigned to them. What I see here is the opening of Pandora's Box especially regarding the sewer issue.
Having been involved at some level on every master plan the town has had since 1980 I feel I might offer a little background as to where we are today regarding sewer in the central portion of town. ( Wellington west to 377).
As you know, the goals of the master plan were derived from the democratic open meeting process. Once the goals were established the challenge was to design a plan that would effect those goals.
Given the reality that our southern border is lakefront, traffic circulation was a big concern. The fundamentals of every plan revolved around keeping the more dense areas around the primary arterioles ( i.e. 2499, Flower Mound Rd., and to some degree 1171.) To make this happen, higher densities were only called for in the areas that naturally drained to our septic plant. That is the area referred to as east of the ridgeline that runs diagonally through the town.
West of the ridgeline was to be low density as running sewer over the ridgeline required a large array of lift stations (that were costly and dangerous) and would bring in density that could not be accommodated by the road circulation system. Originally most folks thought 1 acre minimum would do it. In reality perk ability dictated 2 acre minimum. You will notice the low density areas of the master plan now correspond to the low perking land masses. This not only reduced density but preserved more trees, creek ways, vistas, etc. that citizens asked for.
To put it simply, sewer and lack of sewer are the underlying foundation of our master plan. Denying sewer west of the ridge line is the only real way to check the growth of density. There simply is no other realistic way.
Keeping down the density pays dividends to the town by reducing traffic generation, reducing impact on our schools, and reducing demands (costs) on town services. At the same time, it generates significant tax revenues to
the town from high value dwellings. By the way, estate housing was instrumental in keeping our bond rating higher than it would have been in the mid to late-80's when most of Texas was "red lined" by financial institutions.
The Master Plan, to be a VIABLE plan for the future, should only be "tweaked" occasionally not redesigned.
In summary, the issue of sewering the entire town has been vetted in the democratic process many times before. Almost all of people raising this issue have a financial vested interest and "smelled blood" when the steering
committee got off task. The consultants who created the final plan WRT (also did our 1980 plan) agreed on the sewer, and lack of sewer, as a foundation to our plan to bring about the articulated goals of the plan.
We don't need to spend additional time and money on "reinventing the wheel". The Master Plan is a good one. The steering committee needs to be steered back on course.
If I can be of any help, don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks for your time and efforts on the Town's behalf.