Several new activities have surfaced at Waterwood. We all know a
handful of lot owners who have purchased adjacent lots, but thanks to
a new county regulation, more lot owners may see benefits in doing
so. Their motives to buy adjacent lots may vary -- some may want to
build a large home on two lots, some may want to expand their
landscaping around their existing home, and others may simply want
more privacy by keeping potential neighbors a safe distance away.

For the past quarter century, consolidating several lots into one lot
was a seldom-used practice because it was an expensive and time
consuming procedure. It involved a legal procedure (several hundred
dollars) which required a lawyer to draw up legal papers, send
notifications to all neighbors in that subdivision, obtain approval
from WIA's Architectural Control Board (ACB), and record the new, enlarged
lot with the taxing authorities. As of December 2002, however, the
county's new Subdivision Regulations make this do-it-yourself
procedure inexpensive and fairly easy by obtaining the County
Commissioners' approval. As of this writing, it's uncertain whether
lot owners will have to also obtain WIA's approval to consolidate
lots, but once consolidated, lot owners will still have to obtain
the ACB's approval if those additional lots involve landscaping,
remodeling or construction projects.

Last winter, the Commissioners approved revisions to the county's
Subdivision Regulations by allowing property owners to combine two or
more lots into one lot (to download forms and information pertaining
to this procedure, click on "Files", then click "Combining Lots,
County Regs" on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waterwoodwatchdog/).

Consolidating lots at Waterwood can be financially beneficial. By
consolidating several lots into one lot, the owner receives only one
tax bill from the county and one assessment bill from WIA (to be $150
per lot next year). Additionally, selling one large lot instead of
several little lots may also increase its marketability and perhaps
even its sales price (as well as its taxable appraised value).
Today's buyers often want one or more acres of land, preferably
lakefront or next to a golf course. One reason why Keystone Land and
the majority of Waterwood lot owners can't find buyers for their lots
is because they're too small (one-tenth, one-quarter and one-third
acre), and many don't border the lake or golf course.

The first person in Waterwood to take advantage of this new,
inexpensive
opportunity to consolidate lots is Phil Palmer. On May 13th, the
Commissioners met to discuss and take action on several matters, one
of which was the approval of Phil Palmer's request to combine lots 13
and 14 in block 5 of Greentree Village, lots 12 and 13 in block 3 of
Park Forest Village, and lots 20, 21 and 22 in block 6 of Whispering
Pines Unit Two. Last April, Phil Palmer also received the
Commissioners' approval to combine lots 23, 24 and 25 of block 1 in
Bay Hill. By combining these lots, Palmer reduces his WIA assessments
by six lots (a savings of ¤900 in WIA assessments next year); he also
reduces the number of votes his family can cast at WIA elections by
six units.

A buying spree of adjacent lots for consolidation purposes, however,
has the potential to jeopardize Waterwood's "piney woods" environment
which is supposedly protected by legal documents. Two months ago, one
Waterwood homeowner bought a heavily treed golf course lot next to
his home and proceeded to timber and sell eight 100-plus-year-old
pine trees on that lot. Although the owner had claimed the trees were
diseased and received permission from WIA's Architectural Control
Board (ACB) to remove the trees, further inspection after the fact
failed to prove all the trees were diseased.

A similar incident happened several years ago when a homeowner
harvested more than a dozen pine trees on his three lots adjacent to
his home by also claiming the trees were diseased. He failed to
obtain permission from the ACB, and yet he was never penalized for
violating the deed restrictions. Harvesting healthy large pine trees
in non-construction areas is a violation of Waterwood's deed
restrictions, but since there are no financial penalties for failing
to get permission, this deed restriction lacks teeth. Charging fines
of $150 per tree removed without permission would be a good way to
enforce this deed restriction.

Anyone who's concerned about this issue can email ACB Chairperson,
Carol Winters (nanya@...); or if you see a neighbor or other
person cutting down a large healthy tree, you can call WIA (891-7710)
to inquire if permission was granted. According to Joe Moore, WIA
administrator, requests for permission to remove diseased trees will
be scrutinized more carefully.

Another Waterwood landowner, Jacinto Investments, has discovered a
way to reduce the cost of land ownership by eliminating M.U.D. taxes
from their annual tax bills. After canceling eight Deer Creek units
and three Greentree Village units in the past 18 months, Jacinto
Investments now aims to get a bill passed by the Texas Legislature in
order to cancel its annual tax liabilities to Waterwood M.U.D.

House Bill 1541 includes amendments to add Sections 54.748 and 54.749
to the Water Code (go to http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/ and insert
HB1541 in the "quick bill status" field). If passed as currently
written, Jacinto Investments will be able to petition the M.U.D.
Board of Directors before August 31, 2005, to be excluded from the
district. This bill states that upon reviewing the facts, to be
provided by Jacinto Investments at their own cost, the executive
director of the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality and the
Waterwood M.U.D. Board directors will consider, among other things,
the economic impact of the proposed exclusion. The Board will then
decide if grounds for exclusion have been met and if so, an order of
exclusion will be granted.

Assuming that Jacinto Investments is successful in pushing this bill
to become state law this year, we can expect prior to August 2005
that Jacinto Investments will be petitioning the M.U.D. Board to
exclude more than 1,000 acres of canceled undeveloped lots from
M.U.D. taxes. What does this portend for the rest of us? Will our
M.U.D. taxes increase? Will Jacinto Investments' "gain" (paying less
taxes) result in our "loss" (paying more taxes)? Will an undeveloped
lot owner in a canceled subdivision be able to obtain water and
sewage hook-ups should she ever decide to build in a "former
subdivision" that was granted exclusion from the M.U.D. district? And
if M.U.D. taxes do increase for the rest of us, by how much will they
increase?

If this boggles your mind, consider the composition of the M.U.D.
Board (currently composed of Betts Horn, Henry Picklo, Donald
Thornton, Willie Wigginton, and L.A. Wolfskill). If the Board
approves the exclusion, those 1,400 or so lot owners who could be
negatively affected by paying more M.U.D. taxes won't even get the
satisfaction of voting those directors out of office; M.U.D.
directors are appointed, not elected. Consider, too, the undeveloped
lot owners who are still trying scratching their heads over their
newly canceled subdivision. As a result of Jacinto Investment's
successful cancellation of eleven undeveloped subdivisions, the
county's appraisal district threw out the word "lot" this year. What
was once known as "Lot 3, Block 1, Greentree Village Unit Three" is
now know as "A188 William J. Knight, Tract 9.9".

If you thought rural life in the piney woods of East Texas was going
to be unfettered and simple, think again.