Waller County Commissioners Court on a voice vote approved development agreements for two large subdivisions: Sunset Grove, a 556‑acre project proposing about 1,500 lots in Precinct 3, and the Riley Road tract, a 347‑acre project proposing about 1,300 lots in Precinct 2. The court approved related general‑plan variances, capped 40‑foot lots at 30 percent, and added conditions including a build‑to‑rent prohibition and county approval of any multifamily proposals.

Robert, a county development staff member, presented the two agreements. He said, “They're gonna donate, 7 acres to the county for a park, and they're going to, also contribute a hundred thousand dollars for said park,” describing the Sunset Grove commitments. The agreement also requires a 25 percent developer contribution toward a future traffic signal at Stockdick and FM 2855; that signal would be a TxDOT installation with the developer covering a share of county costs.

On Riley Road, the agreement includes a deputy policing contribution (a 90/10 cost‑share for deputies in the MUD), a prohibition on build‑to‑rent housing unless the developer obtains court approval, and an estimated contribution of about $1.5 million for county road work tied to the project. The court amended the Riley Road motion on the floor to explicitly approve the general‑plan variances and the development agreement before voting.

Commissioners debated design standards and the long‑term effect of increased proportions of 40‑foot lots. One commissioner said recent 40‑foot‑lot development product on the ground had raised concerns about durability and long‑term county costs for schools and public safety. Another commissioner and staff described approaches to negotiate “intangibles” — design or material standards (brick, stone, sidewalks, driveway standards) — that could improve product longevity even where narrower lots are permitted.

Both development agreements require that any multifamily proposals or assignment of the developer’s obligations come back to commissioners court for approval. The court recorded no roll‑call vote tally in the meeting transcript; both items were announced as carried at the bench.

Looking forward, county staff said the agreements will be administered through the county development services process and that the commitments (park land, roadway contributions and deputy funding) will be tracked through development agreements and project bonds.

The approvals follow broader court discussion earlier in the meeting about development‑related infrastructure (drainage, master road and drainage planning) and a pending state bill discussed by staff that could affect local review of third‑party plan submittals.

Ending: The court’s approvals do not finalize construction schedules; developers must still meet platting, permitting and any required third‑party reviews. Commissioners asked staff to prepare a public‑facing summary of developer commitments so residents could see the explicit infrastructure contributions tied to each agreement.