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 12
Now, number 12 is to consider and take appropriate action on a plat for recording in precinct 3, resubdivision of lot 59, and he will springs, revised plat, two lots, 6.88 acres, apple springs drive, no physical required, sewage service to be provided by onsite wastewater facility, city of Leander.
>> judge, I would come back to my original line of questioning which would be some time to see if we could find that the neighbors might entertain -- make an amendment to the bylaws. I know that, carolyn, you are shaking your head. Would you like to-i see something or -- somebody or can I have anybody with any opinion about that?
>> I have another thought that could be having kind of simultaneous things happening at the same time.
>> I知 certainly open.
>> do I need sit down or --
>> yeah, just sit down if you would.
>> sharon seagull. I've been hering here since 1992 and I can tell you if you need a 74 -- if you need a toeal agreement on anything in our neighborhood, it's never going to happen. It's just got going to happen. You will never get 74 property owners to agree 100% on anything. I approached one of my neighbors in the hall and said, okay, why can't there be a compromise. If all you are worried about density and that's your real thing, why not ask Travis County if that's the issue and if that would be a compromise, then put a stipulation on the plats that says, you know, it's approved, but on the condition that there's no further subdividing of a lot that has been subdivided. And that you can only get a building permit from Travis County for one house. You know, it's sad that you have to put the ability to get along with your neighbors. Thank god we're not a mandatory h.o.a. And thank god we have Travis County and the city of Leander to come in and mediate or to do something because it's unfortunate that we have a 10-year history of bickering about every little thing from the color of the house that's not in our deed restrictions to everything under the sun. And to see people start monkeying with our deed restrictions and open the door to adding things, that would be disaster and we need to situation to tone down in our neighborhood and to not be there. You already have people as you have seen, they are freaked out that this is going to create the worst case scenario of every lot in apple springs that's more than an acre being divided into acre lots. Never going to happen. It's feasiblely immaterial tpobl crow ate that level of density. I don't want to see four hospitals on a lot that could have only had two -- houses. I ask what does it take to compromise. Well, the compromise is not going to happen. I can tell you it's just going to rerupt into a world war ii thing and I wish we could say we could compromise, but if you get 51%, you might lobby 51%, but you are going to create animosity. While mr. Droughtry, I think that's a wonderful idea in a neighborhood where people can compromise, you are not going to have compromise because there's going to be a school of people who they would rather go to attorneys and do injunctions than come profplts if the real issue is density, and I don't know mr. County attorney, but if you have it in your ability to approve and plat and place on it a stipulation that it cannot be further subdivided and then if there is someone who wants to do further subdivision, then take that issue up then, but I don't -- is there not a mechanism where you can kind of make a compromise yourself with our situation in that it is ambiguous, it doesn't deny us the right to subdivide?
>> let me --
>> can you do something about it?
>> could we just today, I mean, say yes, we are going to -- we are going to allow this to be done because this effectively can be done? I mean within the bylaws. Or do we just put it back to t.n.r. And say, you know, we don't have an issue with it? I mean everything has been complied with. I知 really looking for a way -- unless somebody can convince me in the next couple of minutes that what i've asked is not reasonable because it's not encouraging any sort of density. And Karen, jump in. I know you had an idea.
>> well, I don't know -- [inaudible].
>> well, we have the legal authority to impose restriction that there be no further subdivision of the six-acre tracts.
>> I知 willing to --
>> let's get the legal opinion. We may not have the legal authority to do it.
>> I would say this. You would not be imposing a legal restriction as much as pointing out that a restriction already exists, because again what you have to decide based to language of the statute is whether anyone has established rights or being interfered w and the deed restriction says you can have two houses on one lot. So two houses on one lot doesn't interfere with anybody's established rights. But by the same token, three houses would interfere with somebody's established rights. So you would just be saying we're going the approve a resubdivision that allows two lots on the original lot, but you are pointing out that based on this original deed restriction, three would be a violation of established rights and you wouldn't approve that if somebody came in and tried to do that in the future.
>> and that's where I was headed.
>> that is what you are saying. You would agree to it.
>> that's where I was head odd this is that there always was the intent on this original 6.88 to have two. And the subdivision makes sense in this case related to estate issues and it is a family and we wouldn't have even required you to do it, but Leander is say this is a subdivide. That's what I would say is on the -- i'll call it the leftover large tract of 5.88, if that Travis County ever came back to Travis County to subdivide again and it doesn't sound like it can because of the way the lot is laid out and access, but people are create, I would give notice there would be no way I would approve a second replat of what i'll call the large 59 leftover because that absolutely would violate everything that I would see as being the original intent of the subdivision and that is two could go on these large lots and nothing further. Even though there would be a technical way to get around it, I would not because that would be interfering with the property rights of everybody in apple springs because it was envisioned two could be doubled up on a lot, but not anything more than that. So I can see where if this can work today, you couldn't come back. And I would want to make sure -- the legal question I would ask is can mr. Glade voluntarily put a plat note on his remainder # .88 acres that basically says I will -- this will not be subdivided further and it's something I agree to?
>> sure.
>> so the plat note there when we are all long and gone that there's not a loss of memory here. And it's my understanding on the one acre piece they couldn't divide that because they are on septic and there is a one acre minimum related to septic. [multiple voices]
>> one thing I would caution is this plat has already been approved by the city of Leander so before we start adding plat notes, we would need to be sure that they are all right with that. Because they've already approved this plat.
>> I can't imagine why they would not --
>> just add a note, tom?
>> you've got the authority to add a note. It comes down to if that happens, does the city regard it as a big enough change that they would have to act again on the plat.
>> okay. Those who testified against this initially, does this help any? What we're looking at is some way to approve the subdivide into the five and one acres, those two lots, but basically try to impose a note on the plat that would limit -- that would restrict further resubdivision.
>> that doesn't affect the rest of the subdivision.
>> no, ma'am, just these six acres.
>> so each lot that comes up for subdividing, I know ms. Seagull has property rumored to be subdivided as well, we would be back again doing this over and over and we are trying to come to resolution so we don't have to do this and we don't want to set a precedent with one-acre lot.
>> I think what the problem is --
>> one is not before us. I知 not sure we would have th-rt to do that. You would end up coming bay on a case-by-case basis.
>> we would still be forced to seek injunctive relief.
>> the deed restrictions --
>> we were hoping this would settle the six acre issue.
>> the deed restrictions in and he will springs can be amended in 2007 according to the developer. It's listed in there we can make changes. But I知 willing to add to my plat the note on the 5.86 acres that I will not build two houses on it or subdivide it again.
>> and I知 glad to hear you say that. I am very sensitive to what your other neighbors don't wanted. I get that. That's the reason I think that we've really got something here that both people can live with. At some point in time someone else may want to do the same thing where you -- as far as getting loans and whatever, it's the only sensible thing to be able to do. And given that you are only going to put -- whatever you own right now, you are only going to put two homes on it, I just don't understand why between now and the 2007, whenever you are able to make the amendment in 2007 that everybody wouldn't sign that. I don't see the liability or any liability there for doing that. But that's -- and I do think that we probably ought to try to get in touch with Leander and say this is -- you know, the sensitivity that we have on this thing is this. I can't imagine that they are going to object to what we're asking to be done.
>> I don't imagine that they would, but still, I just -- I don't want to put anyone in a worse situation than they are right now.
>> mr. Daugherty, is that in the form of a motion?
>> yes. I would make that motion. That we would accept --
>> motion is to approve the request?
>> second.
>> but agree to the condition that this almost six acres not be further subdivided.
>> and that he not put a second house on the 5.88 without subdividing it.
>> correct.
>> that's agreeable?
>> this is agreeable.
>> this is a growing motion. Melissa, are you picking up awful it?
>> remember, you can't put another house as far as I would be concerned, you can't put another house on your 5.88 acres.
>> right.
>> I would not. It's not feasible and I agree to not do it, but I would like to add to it the plat in case I ever sold that property, the next person couldn't build a second house either.
>> that's right because then you start monkeying with the density and that's what I知 trying to get away from. I知 in agreement to -- you just have two houses on what you've got.
>> we didn't want to re-create to have the right without subdividing -- this covers it both ways. You can't legally subdivide it dodd to do it or because that's part of the original.
>> let me understand this.
>> we need specific language covering this I would guess later on. Can we generate language covering this later this afternoon?
>> yes, judge. Thank you. I want to make sure I知 on the right page with this and I think I am. By this action we've taken here today, regardless of how many acres you have whether it's eight, six, ten, whatever, this action that we're taking today can only be two houses on that lot regardless of whether you subdivide it as the person has done here with this six-acre tract and then of course his house [indiscernible]. What that means so me is that if anyone else comes here to do the same thing, the magic number is skill two houses. -- still two houses, not three.
>> correct.
>> that's what I知 understanding. Is that correct?
>> uh-huh.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> any more discussion on the motion that was seconded by Commissioner Sonleitner? Any more discussion? All in favor of the motion? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you for your patience.
>> thank you for the compromise.
Last Modified: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:02 AM