Travis County Commssioners Court
June 15, 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 3
Number 3 is a public hearing to discuss request regarding a plat for recording in precinct three: resubdivision of lot 59, apple springs (revised plat - 2 lots - 6.88 acres - apple springs drive - no fiscal required - sewage service to be provided by onsite wastewater facility - city of lean regarding.
>> move to open the public hearing.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> carol joseph, t.n.r. The owners of this lot wish to convey one acre of this 6.8-acre land to their mother. And in normal circumstances within the county, that is not something that we would have to approve. However this is in the city of Leander jurisdiction and they require that they resubdivide. We've had search issues from the neighborhood -- we've had several issues from the neighborhood complaining that their deed restrictions allows for two family homes by resubdividing their assumption is that they will resubdivide again. However the one acre is set definitely onsite and couldn't be subdivided. The five acres there's always a possibility, but they have deed restrictions. As far as we are concerned, it meets our -- our regulations and we have no issues, but we've had several --
>>
>> would anyone like to give testimony during this public hearing. This is number 3, if so please come forward. Get real comfortable in one of those chairs, give us your full name, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> my name is bert, a were the of apple springs subdivision for 15 years. I知 opposed to the subdivision, I知 not opposed to their parents living with them. The problem is -- once the person is subdividing the average lot is six acres, three readally you could subdivide is six times. We are not on a wastewater system. We are not on city water. We are on wells and septic systems. Constantly with future subdivisions of all of the lots it opens the door for -- for problems with the water table. So I strongly oppose the subdivision of any lot in apple springs. The -- the deed restrictions allow for two residents on each lot, which is perfectly fine, the subdividing creates a potential for each lot to be resubdivided, sconlly a six acre owe constantly a -- consequently a six acre lot could become six lots. That's the conclusion of what I want to say.
>> thank you very much. So -- in this case there's a large lot, with family members, dividing it in half, some on one tract, another the other.
>> right.
>> so your concern is that -- the potential for-- for further subdividing these two new ones.
>> yes, the larger of the few ones. I understand the minimum lot size for septic is one acre. If you have six acres and you subdivide off one acre and if you subdivide off another acre, then another acre, you would have a -- you would have a potential for quadrupling the density in the subdivision. Since we are all in wells, the water table varies considerably in the area, the -- the subdivision could be out of water with this type of action, plus the septic systems.
>> the subdivision that used to be my area, is there some reason that the neighborhood association, which I remember as being quite active, quite vigorous, is not trying to [indiscernible] enforce the deed restrictions?
>> well, the deed restrictions do not allow or disallow for subdividing. The intent for the people that wrote the deed restrictions, we have a letter stating their intent, was not to resubdivide as it is platted -- as it was originally platted.
>> do we have any legal reason -- to deny the request?
>> it's going to depend on how you construe the deed restrictions. When you are dealing with resubdivisions like this, what the statute says is that -- is that if -- if it interferes with -- with any of the established rights of the lot owners in the subdivision, -- then the Commissioners court can approve it only if all of those owners consent. The first thing that you have to decide is does this resubdivision interfere with anybody's established rights.
>> did t.n.r. Look at that question.
>> as far as we know, it doesn't in that -- we have a right to split it, to have at least two families in that subdivision. So -- so the assumption is as long as they do that. They are not in violation. We can tell them, that I know of, to don't do the other five acres. What happens is legally, because they have resubdivided, they have now -- they have now enabled themselves to resubdivide the five acres because the deed restrictions only say two per -- two houses per lot. And now they have a five acre lot. We have no rights as far as I understood to -- to do any more than that. Which is they are now taking six and making two families. We can't assume that they are going to make the same resubdivision for the other five acres.
>> but did you have a chance to go to Leander when you have this issue on the city's agenda?
>> yes, I was there at that.
>> what's some --
>> I知 sorry, I didn't hear you.
>> basically shared with them the same concerns that you are sharing with us today?
>> yes, I did.
>> so the right that you have as a property owner that you believe this subdivision affects is what?
>> well, resubdivisions will constitute a nuisance, increasing use density, there by reducing privacy and distance between neighbors, opening the door for further subdivision of already resubdivided lots, creating potential strains on water well usage, septic drainage fills and of all of the foregoing defeat the purpose of us purchasing the property with the understanding that it would be distance between neighbors and privacy in the neighborhood.
>> did t.n.r. Have a chance to look at these issues before today?
>> as far as I know they did.
>> they were brought to t.n.r.
>> yes. They brought us all of the surveys and stuff. But the issue is they have -- they have the right to subdivide. They are required to resubdivide by Leander's law. In our -- in our statutes, all -- we have the right to just convey because it's a family member. And we wouldn't even have been here reviewing it, except that Leander requires that you resubdivide to separate the two lots.
>> looks like Leander is taking the lead. We are here because -- because we are kind of brought into it.
>> I have a question then. Why would Leander require you to subdivide noard to have two homes -- in order to have two homes on the lot when the deed restriction is to allow you to have two homes on the six acre lot, period, without subdividing?
>> that I don't know.
>> if you take no action on this, the Leander authorized subdivision occurred, doesn't it?
>> it has to be -- it's going to have to be approved by both Leander and the county in order for the resubdivision to be filed in the county clerk's office.
>> do you feel the need to look at any further?
>> we might want to chat about it in executive session, can I suggest that?
>> okay.
>> anybody else want to give testimony during this public hearing? You may want to move to the end. Thank you, sir. That will leave four chairs, if we could -- two more to come up. If you give us your full name, each of you, we wouldo ger comments.
>> my name is tony blaze, I am the landowner of lot 59 in apple springs. The main purpose for wanting to subdivide the one acre to my parents to build their house, I understand we are allowed two houses per lot. But when it comes tax time, it would be cut and dry who owes what. My parents are downsizing, would love to live in apple springs. The smallest lot available in there right now is four acres. I just want to sell her one acre which meets the septic requirements. If something happens to them and I have their house on my property, it then becomes my home and I pay taxes on it. And I can't afford the two houses. If it was its own legal lot it could then be sold. Nobody would come and buy a home on my property that they don't own the land for. So there was a few logistical reasons why we wanted to make that lot actually their property. Mortgage company would prefer to loan her the money to build the house if they owned that piece of land. There's not going to be a subdividing frenzy in apple springs because of the terrain, the elevation changes. You can barely get one house per lot already. That's why most of the people -- that are hyped me that are in protest, they only have one house on their lot. But they are requiring me to -- if I want a second home, to put it on there without subdividing. I don't feel I知 breaking the deed restrictions because it doesn't say we can't subdivide. Leander city attorney went through all of this and said they have no problems, they don't see anything wrong, I meet all of the requirements. I meet the requirements for Travis County to subdivide. The five acres left that my home is on is land locked. Each lot, one would have 46 feet of cul de sac access, the other would have 48. I couldn't put another house and have access to the street. Plus with my house placement, the two septic beds, the well and 100-foot circle around the well that you can't encroach on, I couldn't build another house on the five acres. So I don't think the scenario that I知 going to subdivide again and build all of these houses and I知 turning it into track housing, that is not a scenario that I think is possible. In the survey that they sent around Friday, trying to petition against me for subdividing, it stated we are sending this out because lot 59 wants to subdivide. And they mentioned a 10-acre lot, subdividing three times and having 8 lots. Well, I think that misrepresented what I知 doing. Because they made everybody think 10-acres was going to become 8 lots when I知 just taking five acres or a six acres lot and making a one and a five. So they misrepresented their survey that they turn understand by stating the same thing. You know, mentioning my lot, mentioning 10-acres subdividing three times. I don't think that survey is legitimate to be used. I asked that it pass because I meet all of the requirements for subdividing.
>> is there anything in the creation documents for apple springs that talks about that there is no lot that is smaller than -- than blank? I mean, when this thing was first built, it's been a number of years since i've been out there, all on septic issues as a matter of fact --
>> there has been lots that have subdivided in apple springs already. I知 not the first.
>> legally subdivided.
>> yes.
>> or doing the massing of two houses per lot.
>> lot 38 is 38, lot 38 a.
>> which is in the original mapping.
>> lot 54 was subdivided.
>> lot 54 is excluded from the deed restrictions.
>> it's still a platted lot in Travis County and it's still a lot in apple springs.
>> but was that all done when the original platting came through Travis County or were those things done subsequent to the original plan? I知 trying to distinguish here in terms of what were the expectations of folks. Because this is very -- it's a very neat subdivision in the sense of all of the views and terrain is unbelievable and the houses are wonderful out there. But -- but I do remember extraordinary lot sizes in terms of being out there and I知 just wondering if there was the anticipation that that could be whittled away in terms of -- there would be something as small as one acre because that is the minimum on the septic, I知 just asking the question of the lawyers.
>> the restrictions that I got, which I assume are the correct restrictions here, I don't see a lot size restriction.
>> let's hear the rest of the citizens. Yes, ma'am?
>> okay. I知 going to read part of my --
>> if there's somebody else that need to come up, sit there, we would appreciate it.
>> my name is sharon steigal, I live at 19106 apple springs drive, on lot 63. Here today to show support for my neighbor the glazes who are dividing lot 59. I live about 400 feet from the glaze's property. I知 on a hill and I overlook their entire lot. Of all of the people here today that are going to be impacted visibly at all by the glazes it would be me. Now, I would love to live on a huge ranch with no houses out there, but i've always known that you can have two houses per tract. Always known it. There are already lots that are 1 point something out in apple springs now. We are not all 14 and 15-acre lots. Most of the lots that are big lots, it's because a vast portion of that is not buildable because of the slope and, you know, the mechanics of getting a septic system on a sloped lot. And the terrain issues are there. But I知 also a realtor. I've owned three homes myself in apple springs since i've been there. If I thought their lot was going to deter value or create density I would be objecting to it. And I know other people with property directly across the street from me that came to Leander in support of it who were next door to tony, said I don't have an issue. The people who are most close to tony didn't have an issue. I知 not a friend of his. I don't know him from before. He's just someone who is there. I don't have an an active to building two houses on their lot. Deed restrictions allow for two single family houses per tract as originally platted. To me it's only good common sense to legally subdivide to enable you to separately finance and resell those houses at some point in time when a person's housing needs change. Because, you know, everybody's needs change as you go along. Tony's parents aren't going to live forever. And you have got estate issues to deal with when you co-mingle your finances. Tony could find himself having to sell his property because his siblings want their part of the parents' estate if they were to pass away. You have in apple springs through the years you have owners where it's brother and sister who came and bought a tract together, planned some day when they retire, one family member build on part, one on another because the two families, two single family residences, it's not like most developers who say you can have a guest house or you can have an outbuilding structure. [buzzer sounding] it's always been presented as two single family residences. And like a lot of other apple springs owners, I bought from the original developers that they owned. I didn't buy a resale from some person there. I bought directly from it. I distinctly remember being told that we could buy the small house that they had foreclosed on that wasn't finished, finish it out, and then subdivide it and sell it off when we got ready to build our second home or move up home. And I have built two really nice like -- I look on the tax rolls, they are like 3800, 4200 square foot houses there since I had my little bitty house that I first bought there that was like not even a full 1500 square feet, the deed restrictions require. There are already three lots that have been subdivided through the city -- not -- without going through the city of Leander or Travis County forum subdividing process. I really looked at those, have looked at them over the year as these issues keep coming up. Lot 38 a was created by the developers. They had done their plat and during their plat revision processes they had a buyer come to them who wanted to buy one acre. That person bought a lot in that -- and that lot on your Travis County plat is referred to as lot 38 a because that occurred even before they finished all of the long lengthy things to get their final plat done. The developers themselves subdivided off. Because you don't normally have the number of lots with an a unless they divide it after filing the formal plat, because that's not something that you normally see. Then there was a lot 1 that was the corner. We had the same thing come up where people were calling the city of Leander, unhappy because one of the lot owners of the bigger lots that happens to have -- wanted to divide their lot on into two tracts. Keep their home, wanted to relocate, sold their home and sold another lot to another property owner in apple springs. When they subdivided there was a big hoorah everybody has been paranoid some developer is going to buy a Travis County and suddenly create a duplicate subdivision which could happen if you were out in the field in Leander that's a pasture. We are not a pasture. Ms. Sonleitner has been there, been to meetings and seen. It's very muchly rolling terrain like cat mountain or jester estates. The density hasn't created a quality of life that makes nobody want to live there. Nor does that subdivision impede their value at all. These haven't. Now, there's one other lot that was subdivided without going through the formal plat process. And that's lot 54. And that lot was divided by court order from a judge in a divorce decree where he granted because there can be two residences per tract, he granted the husband, the wife -- she got the house and part of the lot and he got the rest of the land to build his home on at a point in the future. Now, I got a letter last Saturday, which was right -- where there's no time to really respond ordeal with this. I got a letter signed by five property owners. They are pretty muchly represented here today. And that letter introduced itself and I wish that I had brought my copy but I left it at home. That letter introduced itself as a call to action because of subdividing of lot 59. And then it doesn't address that it's -- that it's for the purpose of having one house for each tract. What that letter states, I知 sure that you can get a copy of it, is that the only numbers they mention are a 10-acre tract guided three times could equal a total of 8 houses. Well, i've been told since by some of my neighbors, even neighbors who have initially not be for subdividing because -- because, you know, when you read that, you think that's what's about to happen, of course you don't want that. But it's my understanding that this is being divided into two lots, for one house, on each lot. Whether it's -- whether it's one-half acre lot, which would not meet Travis County requirements and of course we would pass. Or if they divided it right down the middle, 3.4 and 3.4, you still have two houses. The density issue, if you stick with the originally platted lots, and -- as people come forth and want to subdivide, and you come in and you -- you apply the fact that we are in a neighborhood that's concerned about density, and I understand their concerns about density. And -- and when anybody comes in here, the next -- say tony comes back, six months from now and says, hey, I want to redivide my other lot --
>> [indiscernible]
>> yeah, because what I see is this will keep you from having two houses. If you say no, then how can you finance it to have your two houses and to me that is a greater imposition on a right because when I bought everything I have ever bought in apple spring, I understood that I could have two houses on. But if you impose something that won't allow me to finance them or to do a second house, whether I want to down size and build a second house for myself or whether I want to put my kids there or my parents, if you deny the ability to have two houses and you don't let us at least subdivide once, then you took away our right to have our second home and that's something that I paid a lot of money for.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> yes?
>> thank you.
>> anybody else on this item? If so please come forward, we have got two seats. Sorry for the interruption.
>> my name is [indiscernible] hamilton. Lot 69 in apple springs. The subject of subdivision in apple springs came up less than a year ago. And through some resistance from folks out there, that -- that land was cancelled. But during that time there was a survey taken by the -- by the association. And the outcome of that survey was that 75% of the apple springs' owner responding, the number one answer was no by a margin of 53%, no meaning absolutely no subdivision. The number two answer was not without specific guarantees that no increased density would be possible. That was the 31% margin. The -- that subdivision of lot 59 has gone forward in spite of that survey and with none of these additional restrictions added to it. Which was one of the -- one of the questions. That's basically the reason I知 asking the panel to -- clearly the lot owners in apple springs are out of the loop in the decision making process here.
>> do you believe this request would violate the deed restriction?
>> in the nuisance aspect of it, the -- the statement about -- about the example that one 10-acre lot could become subdivided three times, 8 lots, that's all it was, was an example to explain the exponential possibility of some lots out there. It was never -- it was explained that it was not about lot 59. No one -- no one wants to stop these folks from having everything they want. It's really about -- about creating the door opening, the next one not being quite so innocent.
>> yes, ma'am. Thank you, sir.
>> we -- if there's somebody else who wants to come give testimony, we will need your seat. Yes?
>> my name is carolyn lipscomb. I would like to go on record as being against the subdivision. We have lot 22 in apple springs. Which is approximately 11 acres. We bought in that area because -- because when we talked with -- with -- to the -- that were developing it at the time, they assured us it would not be a dense subdivision. We were told that we could have two structures on a lot. That was so that it -- for the very reason that if a gentleman wanted it, you had a family member that wanted to move on to the lot with you such a what's a mother, mother-in-law, whatever. You could. It was not meant to be -- to be as I understood it developed as -- as rental properties or anything like that, it was just to -- to accommodate, you know, having in-laws there, if you needed to. We bought the property because we did not want to be in a dense subdivision and we've -- we've had the property for about 20 -- 20 some years now. The intent to build on it when we retired -- I just wanted to go on record saying I知 against it.
>> did you attend the hearing at Leander?
>> no. I knew nothing about it. As a property owner we were not notified by the city of Leander of this hearing. I don't know if -- if people who actually lived in the subdivision were -- were absent -- we're absent tee property owners, we had to come into Travis County this morning for this hearing.
>> okay. We appreciate you coming down.
>> thank you, I appreciate being heard.
>> yes. We do have two seats available if -- if you plan to give testimony during this public hearing, please come forward.
>> good morning. My name is debbie column I live in lot 70, apple springs drive, Karen thank you for remembering your visit from many, many years ago out there. I did I did bring a plat of the subdivision itself. The average acreage is over 8 acres per lot. Our concern is not --, my concern is with the opening of the flood gates of allowing a one acre subdivision, there are no restrictions on the subdivision limiting it in the future. I believe this to be a nuisance for the rest of the neighborhood and my welfare and benefit out there. As -- as this, this subdivision is allowed to go on, there's nothing barring anyone else from taking other acreage, other lots, make them a one acre lot. As Karen had -- ms. Sonleitner mentioned the -- there -- there are large acreage out there. The reason people bought out there was because of the density factor. Minimizing or reducing things down would become a nuisance and I certainly intend to pursue other legal means if this continues forward. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much. Yes, sir?
>> my name is [indiscernible] I live at 19404 apple springs drive. I知 the secretary of the neighborhood association. And I provided the survey that has been alluded to from an issue last summer when someone was considering subdividing simply for [indiscernible] and profit. The results of the survey are relatively self explanatory, but there are some things that I would like to point out. First the no category did get the largest single vote total. Secondly, from the rest of the totals, it's clear that there is not a consensus, which is why we depend upon the wisdom of the court. Third thing that I would like to point out, last summer mr. Glaze did vote for putting both restrictions when it was somebody else's property, one would think that he would be willing to voluntarily do that when it was his property. We have requested mr. Glaze do that. I would reiterate that request at this time. If density is not considered at this point, it certainly will not be considered in the future. I thank for you your time, I hope that you will consider the views of all of the apple springs owners.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much. Before we close the public hearing, let me ask two quick questions because this is posted for action today and -- as action item no. 12. But from the fact point of view transportation and natural resources didn't find any fact that would result in its recommendation not to approve.
>> that's correct, sir.
>> coming from a -- tom from a legal perspective, is there a legal standard that would enable us to reject the application if we choose to? Or do you need more time? That's a yes or no --
>> I don't think there's a legal standard that would prevent you from approving this resubdivision because it seems to me pretty clear from the deed restrictions that there can be two houses on this one lot. The issue is going to be once this subdivision is approved what can happen on the new five acre lot. Can that one be resubdivided. And it --
>> the -- can we answer the second question by answering the first?
>> in a way. I would say if -- I think the fear of the neighbors is that if this lot is resubdivided into two lots, that each of the two new lots can then be resubdivided at in finitum. If I allow, that would mean this deed restriction is completely meaningless. You are not supposed to consequence construe documents in a way that makes something meaningless. So I would say that -- that no one's established rights are being interfered with by allowing two houses on this lot. But if the new lots are further subdivided and so that more houses, more than two are going on the original platted lot, then someone would have a good case that their rights are being interfered with.
>> [indiscernible]
>> let me -- I think that I have got this down. [indiscernible] what people are concerned about. Everybody is in agreement that you basically could have two houses on -- whether you have 14-acres or whether you have four acres, I mean, why couldn't there be an amendment in the by laws that would have to be accepted by the majority of -- of apple springs, to say if -- if you divide, because it does make sense if what you are trying to do is get a home separate and aside so that it can be financed and so that someone doesn't have the obligation of -- if somebody goes away. Once you divide that -- that -- if you elect to divide one acre, out of your eight, and seven acres, you can't divide that seven acres anymore. I mean that's -- that's all you can divide. If you elect to divide it down the middle and have each be 3 and a half versus one and seven, once you make that -- because then you are not going to add to density. You have only got two people living there, you can have two people, two single family homes living there now. Why -- why couldn't we -- we see that the -- that the neighborhood could work because I would think that the by laws could be amended to just say, you know, you are fine, we don't mind you dividing your acre and giving your parents one acre, but your five acres that you have got left, you can't do that, you can't make another subdivision on that five acres. Therefore you have at least got everybody locked into all you can have are two people on your original acreage. I mean, would that be -- would that be permissible? Is that -- one second. What do you think, tom?
>> well, you can always -- if you can get every lot owner in the subdivision to voluntarily impose that on themselves, yeah, it's possible. If any one lot owner says that's fine for you all, I知 not going to do that on my property, I知 going to stick with the deed restrictions when I bought it, they've got the right to do that.
>> why don't we call it up under 12. What -- I was trying to figure out what direction we may be heading in, we may be ready to discuss it on 12. We will reach 12 in 15 to 25 minutes. But I do think we ought to close the public hearing, because we have got four more.
>> okay. Move to close the public hearing.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:02 AM