HAYS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
The Hays County Commissioners Court postponed discussion of two agenda items relating to the Hay Commons subdivision amid hours of public comments decrying the potential environmental impact of the project, much of which sits near or directly over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.
Development in this region has been an issue for several years, with plans appearing in various incarnations and always raising concerns about the proximity to the aquifer.
The Hays Commons developers, MileStone Community Builders, have submitted proposals to locate the 500-acre subdivision along Old Bliss Spillar Road, on the southwest corner of the SH 45 & FM 1626 roadways. Approximately 340 acres of the development would be in Hays County, with 150 acres in Travis County. About 300 acres of the development would fall within the Austin ETJ.
In 2025, the Austin Planning Commission rejected MileStone’s proposal to amend the Save Our Springs ordinance for the Hays Commons subdivision.
Agenda item K-6, sponsored by Commissioner Walt Smith, outlines the Hays County portion of the Hays Commons subdivision development agreement.
According to the initial plan, the 340 acres within Hays County would be designated for “346 single- family residential lots, 21 parkland and/or open space lots, one commercial lot, and one amenity lot, as generally depicted in the ‘Concept Plan;’”.
The following agenda item, K-7, sponsored by Judge Ruben Becerra, presents a variance to the initial proposal to permit smaller lot sizes in the development.
In a letter to the Commissioners Court regarding these agenda items, State Representative Erin Zwiener expressed concerns about this and other MileStone developments in the Hays County area.
“MileStone is the company behind several other developments in Hays County, such as Crosswinds, Skyridge, and most notably Persimmon,” Zwiener said. “During the development of the Persimmon project, MileStone clashed dramatically with the City of Buda, including sending negative mailers against sitting members of city council.
“There are similarities to the Persimmon development and proposed Hays Commons development. Notably, both are in the recharge zone for the Edwards Aquifer, and in both circumstances, Mile-Stone struggled to reach an agreement with nearby cities to provide wastewater service and began seeking a wastewater land application permit over the recharge zone.”
Zwiener also said that the City of Hays, which is adjacent to the proposed development, and the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District, are both contesting the wastewater permit for Hays Commons. And she noted that both were caught off-guard by these agenda items, requesting that the court either vote against the items or take no action.
In place of the agenda items, Zwiener suggested that the Commissioners Court work with local stakeholders “to determine if a development agreement is in fact the best path forward to protect our water resources.”
While Commissioners Michelle Cohen, Debbie Ingalsbe and Morgan Hammer recommended more time to research the environmental impacts of both items, K-6 sponsor Smith agreed with an evaluation period for the variance request, which appeared to catch him off guard.
“This is the first time it (K-7) has appeared on the agenda,” Smith said, suggesting a posting period of 30 days for the variance proposal so “the general public can have more time to look at.”
Commissioner Morgan Hammer talked about the role of the court in determining the best option for the population of Hays County regarding the subdivision, stressing the need for considering available information and alternatives.
“It’d be great to just deny development agreements to look like the good person, but it is also hard to balance those things,” Hammer said. “Because what happens when you deny that? What does that repercussion look like?
“What does this look like if we do say no? Is there any other route we can take, working with our legal division and seeing if there’s some loopholes … and that’s what we’re designed to do,” she said.
Commissioner Michelle Cohen acknowledged the large volume of public pushback against the Hays Commons project, as well as the role of the court in keeping the public informed.
“There is a lot of concern about this property, and this developer specifically, that I feel as a court we need to look into, Cohen said.”I’m glad you’re tabling it, and that way we can all get a better understanding of what we’re dealing with here and what our options are as well.”
Judge Ruben Becerra opted not to open agenda item K-7, which he had added for the April 28 meeting. The item proposes a variance for lot sizes within the Hays Commons development. According to existing regulations, a minimum lot size of 0.75 of an acre is required for “developments using a Public Groundwater System in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.”
In the application for the variance, Brian Faltesek, representing Hays Commons Land Investment, states that a variance in minimum lot size is requested “as long as the overall project density does not exceed 1 unit per 0.75 acres.”
The variance proposal states that the portion of the Hays Commons development inside of the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone which is also within Hays County “is in an area not served by a utility providing surface water. As a result, minimum lot size standards that don’t apply outside of the Recharge Zone and to developments served using surface water, apply to this project.”
The variance request also states that said variance would allow the developer to limit development to specific regions of the subdivision rather than distribute houses throughout the development to meet the goal of 346 homes.
“The proposed development concentrates the envelope for the development along SH-45 and FM 1626 and is not created by a self imposed hardship - the variance is desired to reduce the environmental impact of the project and create a better community, with over 150 acres of open space.”
In her letter to the court, Zwiener summed up her stance on the Hays Commons development by emphasizing the importance of adhering to existing guardrails established by the county..
“The minimum lot size requirements over the aquifer are there to protect natural recharge into the aquifer and thus our groundwater supply,” Zwiener said. “Hays County should never give away a valuable lot size variance without an ironclad development agreement that protects our aquifer at least as much as the increased density harms it.”
