Before the floor plan · Lot 67 · CAD ID 157966
The house is the later question.
Porches are pleasant to picture. Access, wastewater and water supply are less photogenic, but they come first. At Castle Lake Ranch Section 2, Lot 67, the March 2025 engineering visit documented serious problems with the existing entrance drive. The documents presented here do not establish a workable residential building plan, septic design, or water supply. We would give those details their turn before choosing a house plan.
This is the publisher’s assessment. The engineering letter evaluates existing site work; it does not decide whether a home, septic system, or well can ultimately receive approval.
Acreage is an opening line.
The parcel record reviewed lists 8.38 acres. That number does not show where a house, driveway, wastewater system and water supply could fit together. A surveyed layout and site-specific professional evaluations would be needed to establish a workable residential plan.
On March 28, 2025, the engineer found the existing driveway difficult to walk down without sliding. In his opinion it would not function as day-to-day access for personal vehicles and could be dangerous. He recommended removing and, if desired, reconstructing it to adequately access the property. The letter does not evaluate every possible driveway route or house location. Read the observations and recommendation.
Septic: the unglamorous essential.
The documents published here do not include an approved, site-specific on-site sewage facility (OSSF) design. The engineering letter is an assessment of existing site work, not a septic evaluation or denial.
Bandera County’s published OSSF order requires county licensing regardless of acreage. TCEQ explains that selecting a system requires site evaluation, soil analysis and permitting review; local requirements can be stricter. Terrain, soil, available disposal area and separation requirements need to be considered together. Those requirements do not establish that approval is impossible for this parcel.
For a buyer, the practical question is whether a qualified designer can produce a workable system that receives the required approvals. The documents here do not answer it. See TCEQ’s OSSF guidance and the Bandera County OSSF order.
Water would need its own plan.
The published documents do not establish a residential water supply, a workable well location, a drilling plan or district authorization for Lot 67. A buyer considering a well would need site-specific review of drilling access, siting and the district’s applicable requirements.
The driveway problems documented in March 2025 are a reason to obtain an independent drilling-access assessment before relying on a well for a home. The engineer did not evaluate well feasibility, and the documents presented here do not establish that a well or another water-supply arrangement is impossible. Consult the Bandera County River Authority & Groundwater District’s well guidance and confirm requirements directly for the proposed use.
A few details before the welcome mat.
We would start with the homework and leave the housewarming for later. The documented access problems and the residential-development questions left unanswered by the available documents call for a current, integrated plan for access, foundations, wastewater and water supply. In our reading, the site work and acreage alone are a little early in the story to start sending invitations.
Editorial review: September 6, 2026. Engineering observations: March 28, 2025. Current site conditions and current permit records have not been verified for this review. Corrections and new evidence.