Travis County Commissioners Court
January 26, 2010,
Item 1
Number one is a public hearing to receiving comments regarding a request to authorize the filing of an order to reject a dedication of paseo sur in arroyo doble.
section 4 subdivision.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> good morning, anna bolen, Travis County tn r.
the purpose of this item is basically to correct agenda item that we had back in 2000 where several streets in the subdivision were vacated.
the exhibit for this street was left out of the vacation order rejects order.
one of the owners forward and wants this section of road that was platted but never built to be vacated.
i do understand there is one person that lives in the area that is in opposition to this because he was in hopes of having a railroad crossing.
i believe that back before 2000, he contacted the railroad and paid for a railroad crossing, and then the check was later returned to him from the railroad because they said that he couldn't cross there.
but this gentleman came forward yesterday.
we have not had a chance to talk with him, staff has not had a chance to walk with him.
so we do know that--note that opposition to this item.
>> would anyone like to give testimony during this public hearing.
if so, please come forward and give us your name.
we would be happy to get your comments.
yes.
if you would speak directly into the microphone for us.
>> my name is jeenette ebarra.
we live at 13044 vientodu sur which is part of exhibit a, directly to our property, the original one done in 2000.
we worked hard to get all this done, meet with all of the persons that were a part of that which was mr.
hopkins, who is opposing it, who lives behind our property and would have to have, if he was to build the road he would have to have a railroad crossing to get to his property because of the railroad.
at the time when we met union pacific turned out everybody and denied the request because there is a railroad crossing about, no less than 50 feet up on horse thief trail.
and that is right now the access that mr.
hopkins has to his property.
he has specified that he was land locked and could not get in and this is his only thorough fare that he can get through the get to his property.
because the union pacific regulations or rules, they are not supposed to have that close of railroad crossings between each other d once they found out that he did have access and there was a way to his land, they denied and said that it was too close, and he has access to where he is.
since we did this in 2000, we thought this was done, over, everything was correct, and we had our right-of-way rejected, and then it came back to the owners, which is us and mrs.
cross land, and at the time her husband, which is passed away.
i think she was just trying to probate the will to get everything correct on the will, and that is when they found the error in the deeds that were recorded.
mr.
hopkins has direct access where he comes in through horse thief trail.
he was put up a secured gate.
in other words, he is the only one that comes in and comes out plus his family.
everybody has moved forward, in other words.
and we have gone on to think this is a done deal, everything was done correct, and everything can move on towards us doing what we wanted to do regarding the property, which we have maintained since we have lived there for now 27 years, no, 28 years just this February.
so we hope that y'all will understand that we thought this was done.
everything was correct, everything was to be to the owners.
we oppose, again, him trying to get access to this easement that we didn't think it was going to be a problem.
>> and he was saying, again--
>> name, please.
>> sorry, I am layer v--larry ada, her husband, at the same address.
>> okay.
>> we want the property to stay vacated because he was, again, like she says, he wants to make a crossing there.
it's only a 50-foot easement.
and just for the safety issues of having another railroad crossing, the horns blairing, the kids playing in that area.
right now it's vacant lot and we made improvements to the property and invested money and now if it's granted that he gets access, all those improvements will be did e stroid--destroyed.
again, a safety issue.
the respect of cost coming back and for the.
at the time in 2000 he said he would be traveling in the morning and afternoon.
in ten years things have been changed and there's been more traffic over there.
we just assumed, leave it alone and just make the jutadjustments that you have to make here.
just for the safety issue aspect of it, of traffic coming within 25 feet of our house and mis--ms.
cross land's house, it's unacceptable to us.
i thought I would say that.
thank you.
>> thank you.
anybody else here on this item?
please come forward.
give us your name, please and your comments.
>> yes, my name is richard fithov, I live at 13101 viento tell su r.
i'm here because the road is ly across from my house.
at the time in 2000 I met with the regional director of union pacific and his contention was because mr.
hop kin was not land locked they would not grant him the crossing.
that is the precise reason they returned his check and that is pretty much what I have to say.
this was a done deal back in 2000.
appears to be a clerical error with the county attorney's office.
we just assume this is just to clear up the paperwork.
thank you.
>> thank you.
anybody else here on item number 1?
>> move public hearing closed.
>> second.
>> all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
this will be action item number 10 on today's agenda.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, January 26, 2010 2:15 PM
