Address guide · Observed Zillow and search-result forms
230 Mount Villa Rd #67 / Unit 67 / LOT 67
On August 1, 2026, the review recorded “230 Mount Villa Rd #67” in the heading and “230 Mount Villa Rd Unit 67” in the breadcrumb for Zillow record 461941874. “230 Mount Villa LOT 67” appeared in a search-engine title for that record, not in its inspected page body. These dated observations do not establish an official address or make every use of these strings a reference to Lot 67.
Lot 67 is adjacent to the home at 230 Mount Villa Road. This commentary concerns Castle Lake Ranch Section 2, Lot 67, CAD property ID 157966, not the adjoining home. An address string by itself does not establish parcel identity.
Identify the lot by its record.
Subject: Castle Lake Ranch Section 2, Lot 67 · CAD property ID 157966 · geographic ID 11900-00002-0670.
Bandera CAD records retrieved August 1, 2026 showed 8.38 acres and an empty situs-address field for the retrievable tax years 2018–2026. That is a dated observation of the CAD field, not an official addressing determination.
Source: Zillow record 461941874 and its search-engine title, observed August 1, 2026.
From the field notes
A few things before the welcome mat.
The address is only the beginning. In our reading, these details deserve a place ahead of the floor plan:
- Access concerns. After his March 28, 2025 visit, the engineer reported that his truck’s front tires became stuck in caliche at the entrance and the drive was difficult to walk down without sliding. In his opinion, it would not function as day-to-day access for personal vehicles, could be dangerous, and might be suitable only for ATV traffic. He recommended removal and, if desired, reconstruction.
- Pad questions. The engineer reported that most of the pad appeared to be well-compacted cut material. He identified a small area near the entrance apparently placed over stumps and vegetation, could not determine the extent of missing grubbing, and recommended monitoring for settling. The letter did not evaluate foundation suitability.
- Building questions remain. The documents presented here do not establish a workable residential building plan, septic design, or water supply. The engineering letter evaluates existing site work; it does not decide whether residential approvals can be obtained.
- Restoration had a budget cost. The April 7, 2025 estimate was $14,485.80 for the clients’ desired restoration: returning caliche to its source location and revegetating the affected area. It was budgetary and subject to change. It did not price a residential driveway, house, septic system, or well.
These are dated findings and the publisher’s assessment. Current conditions, later repairs and approvals have not been independently verified. Read the full engineering letter and our building questions.