Travis County Commssioners Court
February 17, 2004
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.
Item 22
Now back to 22, it is to consider and take appropriate action on the following requests represented to mada acres. B. Approve a plat for recording in precinct one: -- appropriate action on the following requests related to manda acres: a. Approve a preliminary plan in precinct one: manda acres (preliminary plan - 17 lots - 75.23 acres - wells school road - no fiscal required - sewage service provided by on-site septic systems - outside all etjs); and. B. Approve a plat for recording in precinct one: manda acres, section one (short form plat - 16 lots - 18.278 acres - wells school road - no fiscal required - sewage service provided by on-site septic systems - outside all e.t.j.s.) And -- and the question is I guess, what are those three magical words that we are looking for.
>> it make it be four. For the record, my name is john carlson, I'm an attorney, I represent the black land prairie concerned citizens group. Appreciate you all postponing this for a week to discuss this. This is mr. Foster over here, he's the developer of the manda acres subdivision, we met twice, I think mr. Foster can correct me if I misspeak, but we have agree odd a couple of things. He's assured us that he plans to place deed restrictions on the 16 lots. We have talked about specific ones, don't have specific wording, but they are in the no manufactured home, no junk type of things, those are the things that are near and dear to our heart in the black land prairie. The second thing that we have talked about is potentially trying to put some sort of words on the plat itself, which would be site built homes. I think that it's four words, only. But I don't know specifically. I have a call out to tom nuckols about the legality of that. That's what we discussed as well, I think mr. Foster agreed to that as well.
>> it is ready for action today.
>> from the county's point of view, yes. It ask meet the standards -- it does meet the standards adopted by the court for the approval of a subdivision plat. This is why we placed it on last week's agenda. What we are talking about right now are deed restrictions that go to the issue of land use. If both parties can agree to these restrictions, that's fine. But it --
>> what would the agreement be evidenced?
>> that is a good question. Typically it would be aside from the plat. The black land prairie would like to put it on the plat itself and I think there is where there's disagreement on whether or not the builder would agree to do that and whether the county has the authority to do it.
>> the reason I asked the question is we are about to approve a plat. And typically we don't approve the plat in -- and then later on add language to it. We would have all appropriate language on the plat at the time we consider it for action. Is this one that would help us take a few minutes and try to get the exact language? Today? Or are we talking about another week?
>> I think that you need some direction from council. I will try on not to overstep my boundary here. You are really dealing with a legal question on whether or not the county should add the language to the plat. And whether we can require it to happen as a condition of approval of the Commissioners court. Now, if the owner --
>> if there is agreement, that's fine.
>> make any kind of finding.
>> but I don't hear that.
>> is there agreement or not?
>> we are in agreement that we can add the wording no mobile homes. Is what -- I don't feel that it's legally necessary that we have met all of the standards that Travis County has put forth in its writing --
>> you won't object to it being in writing, though, would you? If you are saying it verbally.
>> if it holds the court up today yes, I would. If it's going to hold the court up today I would object to it. I don't think that it's necessary. I have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with it. I would rather say no manufactured housing or mobile homes.
>> is that basically what you are looking for?
>> that would be fine with us.
>> no manufactured housing or mobile homes.
>> on the 16 lots. Not including the 75 acres that I still own behind it.
>> on the 16 --
>> right.
>> john, are you all in agreement with that?
>> that's fine. Slightly different version of what we had, but that's the -- the thrust of our concerns.
>> I want to make sure.
>> this particular -- piece of property is -- is very close to the property that owe owe that we have come to you before several times, it's been kind of an eyesore and a problem for us. As long as we don't end up with another subdivision like that, mr. Foster assures us that he's going to put stick and brick homes. We are not so concerned about mr. Foster, we are concerned if for whatever reason his plans fall through we have yet another one of these joseph types of properties.
>> also saying that that would apply to 22 b. Right? Not a.
>> right. That's what I heard.
>> the 16 lots --
>> right.
>> is there a distinction, john? Are you in agreement?
>> that's fine for the plat. Gray we that for putting on the plat itself. Mr. Foster is going to, as he sells the properties, put the deed restrictions. He's told us and I think the court that he's willing to do that as well. Between those two I think that we have the assurances, we would like that language on the plat itself.
>> I guess my question, though, now, seeing as how we haven't seen it in writing. You are saying verbally. My question is to legally, saying to us today before the Commissioners court is that's something that can be binding by verbal --
>> what we would do, if the builder is agreeable, the opener, we would actually write it on to the plat right now, that is what would be adopted by the Commissioners court. That would be legally binding.
>> > so we could write that on --
>> is that going to be a requirement today of the Commissioners court to go outside the -- --
>> well, I guess my question --
>> if we approve this action, what we will do is to approve 22 b, with the words added no mobile homes or manufactured housing, and that would be subject to the approval of legal counsel before the court adjourns. And if there's a problem we would put it back on the agenda next week.
>> are you in agreement with that, mr. Foster? Forester? The developer. With that language? I want to make absolutely sure.
>> if it's legally necessary, yes, I'm in agreement.
>> okay.
>> we can agree to it.
>> black land prairie?
>> you have got to make --
>> john.
>> yes, sir.
>> did you hear the discussion?
>> okay.
>> okay. Well, I would like to move approval with that additional language added in there, no mobile homes or manufactured homes for -- for item 22 b. So -- so with that motion, that would restrict them -- [indiscernible] [multiple voices]
>> anything additional joe that's going up here?
>> I just want to make sure that the developer is in agreement with putting this on the plat. Whether or not it's legally required or not. So that -- that we can move forward.
>> right.
>> and it will be legally binding after it's on the plat. Whether or not it's required to be on the plat or not is a different issue. But if he's agreeable to putting it on the plat, then, yes, it will be legally biengd. I'm trying to make sure that he understands that he needs to make this decision so that the court can move on with approval or non-approval.
>> okay.
>> if it's on the plat it's basically in writing.
>> right.
>> on just the first -- on the 16 lots.
>> yes. Strictly the 16 lots [multiple voices]
>> a lot of the black land's association people who are fighting this all live in mobile homes around my property. My parents live in a mobile home on my property. I -- as long as it's applied to just the 16 lots, that's fine with me.
>> that's all. It's just the 16 lots on the 18.278 acres.
>> yes.
>> okay. So -- so with that I have already made that motion. Is that -- did anyone second it?
>> I will second it.
>> I will second it if I understand it.
>> your motion basically is to put the words no mobile homes or manufactured homes on -- on the plat in 22 b?
>> exactly.
>> we would add that wording before those documents or that document is signed today. We would also check with the county attorney's office? Tom nuckols is the one that we want.
>> he's not here today.
>> I don't believe that tom is in. If what joe has been trying to describe to you is if the developer is willing to voluntarily place that on the plat, it's like he can put a deed restriction on anything in the real property record. It has the same effect. So the impact of Commissioner Davis' motion, it's helpful, but it becomes no longer necessary. In -- if the developer is willing to do this on his own.
>> okay. All right.
>> let me just ask one question. When you say 16 lots, that's 16 homes.
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> single family residents.
>> okay.
>> I guess the only other thing that I'm interested in knowing about all of the plats that we approve is -- is does it depend on the number of people who live in each home that would determine the -- the pounds of waste that are generated? Now we're talking landfill. That's probably a question for john kuhl.
>> yes, it would depend on the trash.
>> john?
>> the pounds of waste that are generated in each home, does the depend on the number of people that live in that home.
>> typically, john kuhl, typically in the capco region we operate on just an average per person figure. What is that number?
>> I'm sorry, I don't have that number right now at my fingertips. Seems to me like it was --
>> like seven pounds.
>> I was going to say 8.
>> pounds per person.
>> or 8 pounds the last time we talked.
>> yeah. Pound per person. I'm assuming that's on a weekly basis. That is just something interesting that I feel like take we need to keep up with when we talk about the need for landfills.
>> okay.
>> thanks.
>> I don't think that that was on a weekly --
>> was it daily.
>> I think that it's daily.
>> daily.
>> that's important to know.
>> seven pounds -- that's the last time we talked.
>> okay.
>> all right. Thank you.
>> any more discussion on the motion on 22 b? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Move approval of --
>> 22 a.
>> move approval of 22 a.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> judge and Commissioners, I want to thank mr. Foster, he's been very cooperative in our efforts, it's been very helpful, it's refreshing to deal with somebody who is willing to sit down with us and talk about these issues.
>> I would like to thank mr. Foster and also the black land neighborhood association for working this outs, working together, really appreciate you.
>> thank you all.
Last Modified: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 5:44 PM