Travis County Commissioners Court
July 6, 2004
Item 1
Number 1 is a public hearing to approve a plat for recording in precinct 3, resubdivision of lot 10, lick creek ranch subdivision phase 1, revised plat, 6 lots, 13.34 acres, out back trail, no fiscal required, sewage service to be provided by on-site wastewater facility under lcra jurisdiction, outside all municipal e.t.j.'s.
>> move the public hearing be opened.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. For the record, Commissioner Daugherty will miss this meeting.
>> good morning.
>> Commissioner Daugherty will miss this meeting. He is out of town.
>> we're just opening a public hearing. It's okay. [ laughter ]
>> good morning, carol joseph, tnr. When we first received this application, we felt that they would meet our standards with the -- of providing the information necessary. Since that time we've severed several comments, which is what the public hearing is all about, to receive comments and issues. The issues that came across, these are issues that we also look at, the covenants and deeds and restrictions and the road frontage as well as the water and wastewater. Initially this subdivision was platted in 1970 prior to our subdivision regulations. A cursory review looked at this and they wouldn't meet our standards. Since then we've received issues in terms of the deeds and restrictions. There's been an interpretation of whether the 100-foot minimum within any direction means within any and all or in any one direction. We're still trying to look into that and decide which is -- what is appropriate. Other subdivisions, other lots within that subdivision have been resubdivided and have met only one direction, so it's not clear whether or not that particular restriction is accurate or is conformed within the subdivision. The frontage of the road, as I stated, it was platted prior to 1970. This is an easement or a private road, and we're still looking into whether or not -- the owner could very well ask for a variance, assuming it meets -- they could prove that it provides minimal burden to the rest of the subdivision, and we have not received that yet. And then the water and wastewater issue is one of lcra's and they have already signed off on the plat as if it will meet the water and wastewater storm water issue within that subdivision. We're asking not to approve this plat at this time. I'm sure we have several folks here that have comments. Until the owner comes back with whatever changes or corrections or variance or whatever they request, they've asked us to not have an action today.
>> we did discuss the three issues you just mentioned with the owner?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> can I ask one question. We've heard the word lick creek subdivision a lot. Is this one thing, a subpart of that giant parcel, not connected?
>> it's a lot within the giant parcel of lick creek. We brought a map here that will show you where it is.
>> where we have the fail failure of the --
>> no.
>> in the vicinity, but not --
>> not right there. Or in the sweetwater that we had last week.
>> thank you. Sorry.
>> [ inaudible ]
>> show him where the other one is.
>> it's going to be back over here somewhere.
>> what's the burnt orange?
>> that's the lot where -- (indiscernible).
>> now, would anyone like to give testimony during this public hearing, and if so, please come forward. And we can take three at a time. As one concludes, if we could make that chair available, then whoever else wants to give testimony can come forward. It would expedite matters if we could get three persons. If you just come forward, have a seat, get comfortable and when one finishes, leave that seat available for some of the others. If you would begin by giving us your full name, we'd be happy to get your comments.
>> good morning.
>> good morning, my name is leonard huber. I live a pedernales canyon trail and I am the treasurer, a director and the registered agent of lick creek ranch association incorporated, a Texas corporation, which is a part association for the lick creek ranch subdivisions. This property is adjacent to the homeowners park, and I have written the owners of the subject property a letter, a certified letter for which I have a return receipt. I think you've been provided a copy of my letter. If not, i'll point out to the owners that this proposed resubdivision is in violation of the deed restrictions, covenants and conditions of the subdivision, specifically under resubdivision of land, the deed restrictions which are recorded in the Travis County records specifically state that lots fronting on lick creek canyon or on the pedernales river, whether within pedernales ranch subdivision or within the wells ranch or simon ranch may be resubdivided into lots containing not less than one acre of land, and a 100-foot minimum width in any direction. Further, another restriction, number three, says tracts located within phase one of the subdivision, which this property does, may be resubdivided into tracts containing a minimum of three acres per tract at a minimum of two hundred feet in any direction. These restrictions are currently in full effect and apply to the subject property, and I request the court to enforce the deed restrictions as recorded in the county records.
>> okay. Did you share those with the applicant?
>> yes, sir, I have sent those in a letter, which he has responded to.
>> okay.
>> if there are any questions of the association, of our association...
>> questions?
>> thank you very much.
>> morning.
>> hi. I put up a little show and tell there for each of you. It has a cover like this, two pages. I heard you ask the question where is west cypress hills. In relation to this, if you'll look at this, i've outlined where cypress hills is in blue and hope canyon springs in blue and the area under the deed restrictions is the giant area outlined in black. That's 2,094 acres. So that makes us the biggest area all subject to the same set of blanket deed restrictions. Where the confusion seems to have come in is additional deed restrictions were placed for lick creek phase 1 and 2, which is what mr. Huber just read to you. So a large portion of this has slightly lesser deed restrictions, and they have the anomaly of the 100-foot what does it mean thing. But it was corrected in what he just read to you. So I don't think that all the deed restriction problems were looked at. And I'm not sure that that is the fault of tnr. It seems to me like right there on your application sheet it ought to have some sort of an affidavit from the applicant that says, this is in compliance with all deed restrictions filed with the county clerk. They ought to have to make that statement to you. I don't see why the county should have to spend their time trying to figure out about the deed restrictions. The county's problem should be enforcing their own standard. And the second page of that little handout that I gave you is -- shows the number of things that I found in about five minutes by looking at your standards on the internet. And the thick that -- the thing that I find most significant to anyone who would be trying to buy this property and is going to be presented to buyers -- and I think the purpose of having this is to protect the public. A significant portion is under water. That's what the blue is. The striped is underneath the lcra in the nation easement. One of the problems that we have with protecting our aquifer out there, which is an extremely sensitive aquifer right now, is that lcra standards for on-site wastewater are far, far weaker than the county's own standards. And I spoke to bob crittendon, who is bite gooi to signs the plat for him, and asked him if it was not of concern that taking a look at the lot that's on the top of this plat. Look at that red line. That's the pedernales bluff. And that is a height of 7 80 feet on average according to the u.s. Geological survey. But you couldn't tell that from looking at that plat because they didn't put any contour lines on. If that is a requirement in your own standards, then that would have been a red flag to anybody that looked at it, that said, gee, where those blue lines ends is 715, and up here on this red line is 780, we've got a really steep parcel which cannot be developed for any purpose because lcra's own rules say you can't develop a 35% grade. But yet crittendon says that's of no concern to him. All he has to enforce is that somewhere above 691 on each individual lot there is one acre. Now, bob turner requires an acre and a and a half here in the county, but lcra only requires an acre, and they don't even care if it's all below the bluff where you can't use it. So what you have left is this little tiny piece up there, which I'm computing to be about 15,000 square feet, about the size of tom landry's house. And on that you're going to have to put a septic field, you're going to have to put a house, put driveways, you're going to have to have offsets for water lines because your well is going to have to be toward the road because of a gravity situation related to getting any sewage into your septic field. And then around that well you're going to have to dry a sanitary easement. And with these kinds of plats, that sanitary easement, which has got to be 100 feet without a concrete cased well or a concrete cased well, which is a great deal more expensive, that's 50, in a big circle. And in order to do that on this plat you're going to be putting your sanitary easement on other people's properties. Now, what I'm complaining about this, apart from all those errors or omissions that are on this plat, your very own rules that you didn't enforce -- I'm saying you meaning the county -- we have a really severe groundwater problem in that area. And this whole southwest quadrant of Travis County, which is about half of Daugherty's district, has been declared to be a priority groundwater management area by tceq way back in 1990. And what that meant was within 20 years it would have severe groundwater problems. Well, the day I bought my property, which was 1971, they had severe groundwater problems. We have a situation out there right now, the next ravine over from there there's a beautiful nine acre parcel of land which has been on the market for as much as $995,000, which was abandoned by its original owner because they could not get any water. So when you deliberately create these tiny lots you're creating problems for people. In the first place they're going to put their sanitary easement on somebody else's lot making it impossible for that person to get anything done. And also, there is no guarantee that on that tiny lot with that few opportunity to drill that they're even going to get a well. So we'll have more and more lots out there that are technically abandoned. And this is not going to be really good for your tax base. So there are a whole lot of reasons why -- that are not specifically in your standards that this is a very, very bad plat and shouldn't happen. What an awful lot of us objected to at first sight was oh my gosh, they will have a lot of clustered wells and they're extremely dangerous when you're working with the trinity aquifer because those clustered wells have a tendency to make a dimple in the substrate below where the water is running. That in turn takes the water away from surrounding wells, which could be as much as a half mile away. So when you put two or three wells close together, it's 10 times worse than putting two or three wells far apart. And I know it's not in your standards now, but I would really, really like to urge you to consider some kind of an emergency action that relates only to this quadrant of Travis County which is a priority groundwater management area, and that is do what blanco county did and put in a five acre minimum lot size where it has to have both a well and a septic. And I don't know why it's become a lot easier to do this kind of thing with tnr. I've done a lot of subdivisions myself, small ones, and I'm not objecting to subdivisions per se. But I am objecting to people being able to do things that I couldn't do. I was required when I did short form to put down every line of set back, five foot set back for utility easement. That served two purposes. It kept anything permanent out of that set back and it also gave a place where the telephone company could come in and trench. They've thrown that away. They don't do that any more. They said that's up to the buyer to figure out where to put that. And that's exactly what crittendon said to me when I said he was creating something that couldn't be developed. He said that's the buyer's problem. This is wrong. They need to go back to that five-foot set back, which would help a lot, because we have a situation out on the bluff right near where I live where there's some narrow lots that have been there for 20 years at least when someone came in and tried to develop. His solution to squeezing everything on the lot was literally to set his house on the lot line. Now we see zero lot line in places like maybe bill gunn's subdivision, but you're not supposed to be seeing zero lot line when you're living out on on the pedernales. But that was their solution because you no longer require any kind of setbacks. And the same thing happens when you're talking about that well that you need to drill. In blanco county you have to have a signed affidavit from the neighboring property owner if you're going to have an easement on to his property. And that is just so logical. But yet you don't do it. I can't find anything in the 177 pages of your standards that makes any special arrangements for a lot that contains a water well. And yet you have got this quadrant of Travis County where water wells are the main source of water. And that big arrowhead that I showed you on that other plat, that's all served by private water wells. And even if the lcra comes down and builds a big old pipeline all the way out to the river or maybe all the way out to the county line or wherever they go, when would it ever help those people. Because there is no water delivery system. It would take a multi, multi-million-dollar bond system of some sort to bring in a delivery system for lcra's water because they're not going to do that. So we have a very severe groundwater problem. It is very typical for anyone who wants to drill within that arrowhead that I drew there to have to drill as many as five wells before they get enough water to be used for residential use. And there are instances where -- where a lot that was recently sold it a 25-acre lot and a-million-dollar home on it. He had a very sparse well. It was pulling only four gallons a minute, and that's about as bad a well as a well driller is building to put a pump down into. And he realized that for what he was trying to sell he needed a better well. He drilled four more times up near that one down to 1600 feet deep, broke the drill, finally moved all the way up to what the tceq would say the law would allow to the main road, bearing in mind he had 25 acres to work with, and finally found a well that he could get a well driller to put a pump down in. We have got very serious problems. And the more of these little lots you create, we don't know which one is going to be the last one, the one that's going to cost everybody something. We have incidents out there where persons have come in trying to find water, couldn't find water, put up a privacy fence so their neighbor couldn't see what they're doing and then drilled as close as they could to that privacy fence and shut the neighbor's well down. Well, that's the law in Texas. That's the the law of capture. But those kinds of things could be avoided if you would go to in the future on all of these replats, give them a five acre minimum. Blanco can do it, so you could do it. And these things need to happen quickly. They don't need to happen while you study it for nine months, 10 months. One reason why people are objecting to this so strenuously is we see this as the tip of the iceberg. A couple of us sat down and figured out in that big 2,094,000 arrowhead that I drew, there's about 12 hundred acres that could be developed and that could happen quickly. And that would mean at one and a half acres for bob turner or one acre for the lcra, at least 800 water wells. You have to understand that that would be das strus. We don't know what will happen right now when rusty parker turns his wells on. Supposedly he has eight on west cypress hills. And a hydrologist who lives down on the end of pedernales canyon trail, he believes that they could have a strenuous effect on what happens to all of our water down there. We're in the tail end of the trinity. It does not work like the he had he did. You've heard about the he did the edward's aquifer and its recharge zone '. We haven't studied the trinity to know how it recharges. But we do know we don't get immediate reaction in our wells because it's been raining for the last four months. Those are some of our concerns, some of which pertain to your standards and some to things that can't be remedied at the moment. But I do want to make one more comment. There's only one thing that I can find in your standards that relates specifically to short form plat. And it says short form plat must be on a public street. All lots must abut on a public street, period. And it does not provide on a variance. That variance is not for short form plat. There is no provision for variance. In the short form plat standard that you have. And in addition, a lot of things the people are objecting to thinking that they're violations of deed restrictions, they're violations of your own standards. You have a separate set of standards for lots that are built without curbs and gutters. One of them is it has to have a min wum money 100 feet adjoining the road. Another one is that the road has to be 60 feet. There are a whole flock of those things. And this was not factored in at all by whoever looked at this. And I heard Commissioner Sonleitner say last week about the research, etcetera, done by planners and they don't rubber stamp. With all the errors that show on this and the violations of your own standards, if that's not a rubber stamp, i've never seen one. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Urks your name, please?
>> sybil, autry.
>> I have a couple of questions ma'am, if you could just kind of -- when we talk about the deed restrictions, are those actual plat notes in this particular subdivision? Or is that a separate instrument?
>> it's a separate instrument. They're not plat notes. It's a separate instrument.
>> does that make it any -- related to the resubdivision of this property?
>> no. What -- the operative law is a provision in the local government code that says when should be wants to resubdivide their lot they have to come to the Commissioners court and there has to be a public hearing as we're doing now, and the Commissioners court can't approve the resubdivision if it violates any established rights of the other lot owners in the subdivision. If you recall, we just went through this exercise. They had a similar deed restriction. It wasn't a plat note, it was a deed restriction, that set some terms and conditions for resubdivisions, and that's what we've got here. And the courts have said in interpreting that established rights provision in the statute that if there are deed restrictions for the subdivision, that does create established rights and that is something you have to take into account in deciding whether to approve the resubdivision.
>> I have a question. In our backup we've got that there are apparently other lots that have been resubdivided through metes and bounds conveyance. Would that come through the Commissioners court for approval?
>> my understanding is those were done without Commissioners court approval.
>> and is that legal to have it happen that way?
>> I will say we have not thoroughly investigated the facts surrounding those resubdivisions, but off the top of my head, unless there's something very unusual, that's something that should have been approved by the Commissioners court and it wasn't.
>> may I speak to that, please?
>> I think the lots that you're looking at -- that have been put forth by ms. Jake cobbs as being a reason to allow deed restriction violations. In the first place, you don't know any of the history of the plat. You don't know that many of those lots were things that were sold by ct wells on contract of sale during the time that he was creating the plat and filing the deed restrictions. And so they were never filed until a long time later when somebody actually paid them off. So they may or may not be violations of the deed restrictions. But as to whether or not you must observe our deed restrictions, I'm sure that knuckles just gave you a correct interpretation. We have our rights. The fact that you think you see a violation or you can prove there is a violation is not jermaine. And I have a couple of little things i'd like to read to you.
>> ma'am, I'm on your side, so --
>> well, let me read it anyhow.
>> ma'am, you've already spoken. I have a couple of questions and then I'm happy to give the floor back to you. Your testimony raised some good questions with me. I'm with you.
>> i've got some case law to cite for you.
>> so does mr. Knuckles. What exactly is the source of water for this subdivision? That was not put in our listing here. We've got where wastewater is coming from lcra.
>> my understanding is it would have to be well water, but that's not a legal question.
>> okay.
>> I will share with you what I know.
>> you believe it's well water. And relating to the state minimums under septic, in terms of separation from groundwater, separation from water well, what is the state minimum related to separation of a septic system infield from a water well? Because certainly nobody can have anything less than state minimums, not even the lcra?
>> I'm not sure without looking at the rules. I don't recall off the top of my head.
>> and is somebody able to go over somebody else's property without their permission?
>> it's done.
>> is it legal?
>> [ inaudible ].
>> in terms of somebody cutting into somebody's established rights?
>> I would have to read the regulations again. I don't recall off the top of my head.
>> is that an issue that would come to us if something was being platted railroad resubdivided if that radius, that would be something that we would get comments from either -- the wastewater is coming out of lcra.
>> I would want to review tceq's on-site regulations again, I would want to review our own subdivision regulations again before I ventured an answer on that one.
>> okay. And my final question raised in here has to do with when something is resubdivided, do we contend to the new blue book, green book, whatever book we're under now, related to a subdivision having to connect to an accepted county road, which has been in existence at least seven or eight years based on the spike situation we had out in precinct 2. So does the resubdivision kick in the requirement that a subdivision has to be connected to an accepted county road?
>> it's a resubdivision and a new subdivision at the same time. I mean, really for -- you're looking at two seats of requirements. Because it's a resubdivision, have you to look at the deed restrictions, but it's a subdivision of property, so all the normal subdivision regulations do apply. So those requirements regarding what type of road the lots front on, etcetera, etcetera, do apply.
>> so it may be that other pieces of this because they're not being resubdivided, still comes in under what happened back in 1970 where we didn't have that rule in place, but anything new being resubdivided would kick in?
>> yes.
>> and if they wanted an exception to that, it would be a variance, which would be discretionary by this Commissioners court? Or we could say no?
>> yes, absolutely.
>> all right. I'm there. > any closing comments?
>> and a closing comment in response to that question, section 82.205 of your standards states, short form plat, each lot must abut a public street. There is no provision for variance on a short form plat. That's one question to answer.
>> those are for new subdivisions.
>> let ms. Autry have her say.
>> it's still a short form plat and it does not say one way or the other. But I don't want to argue with you about that. A comment concerning the sanitary easement around a well. A 50-foot easement, you must have a concrete cased well. Which is considerably more expensive than your ordinary kind. And back in the days when I did some short form subdivisions, I was always required by tnr's predecessor to show on each and every lot a 100-foot radius to show a conventional well would fit on it and also a septic field of minimum size. And also 2500 for a house. Just so to show those things could exist on the lot. Tnr doesn't bother with that any more. And I think that it should be restored. Thank you.
>> thank you, ma'am.
>> thank you, ms. Autry. Yes, sir?
>> hello, my name is dominic (indiscernible). I live on lick creek in the lick creek subdivision. I beg county judge Biscoe and the Commissioners for giving me an opportunity to speak today regarding the proposed subdivision of lot 10. I believe that property owners have a right to do whatever they want with their property, provided that it is legal and does not violate the rights of other property owners. I object to this subdivision because it violates both deed restrictions and county regulations. I also believe that this case points out once more the need for careful review by the county of proposed real estate developments throughout the county, especially those in unincorporated areas and areas not within the municipal extraterritorial jurisdictions, as is lick creek. As a representative of sit tens, you have a great responsibility and I know you are aware of that and I appreciate your willingness to serve the public in this fashion, however, our current review and regulation systems are not adequate to the task. Citizens are having to come before the court itself in order to fight developments that should not pass the review process and should not be considered by the court for approval. Because of this current need for careful oversight by citizens themselves, more particularly relevant to efficiency with the current review process relates to notification. If the county does not have the resources to adequately review proposals, then it becomes especially important that citizens be informed by proposals so that they can know about potential infringements of their rights. I believe lot 10 is a good example. It abuts the subdivision's community park. Legally I don't own that park, but I believe that I certainly have a vested interest in it. Yet I was not informed about a proposed major change to the adjoining property. And the same goes for nearly all the other property owners comprising this very large subdivision. Finally, I believe that the county needs to strengthen its existing regulations in regard to development in this very fragile portion of the county. This will place an even larger burden upon those responsible for reviewing proposals and to you our representatives. Again, I do appreciate your hard work and I thank you for your time.
>> thank you.
>> sir, did you see the sign that was put up? We've got in our backup that there was a sign put up saying this was the subdivision.
>> the sign is at the entrance to the park, which is quite a distance from pedernales canyon trail, which is the main entrance to the park. The only reason you would see it is if you are using the park. Many property owners don't use the park on a regular basis. I happen to have -- I was there yesterday. I was there the day before. I take my dog down there. So I did see it, yes. But many property owners didn't see it.
>> okay. So the signage was actually on the property in question as opposed to your point that it could have been in a place that more people could see it.
>> right. My experience with this and with with west cypress hills has been that we generally -- the notification process is not adequate. The signs aren't large enough or they're not placed where they would do the most good, which is to notify the public of what's happening.
>> morning.
>> morning.
>> my name is Karen huber and I live on pedernales canyon trail. I appreciate the questions that you had at the very beginning about lick creek and the location of west cypress hills because although this is a singular problem within the subdivision, I'm here today because I think if the court approves this resubdivision as it's hit schmidted, it can have some domino effects in the community, which could be unfortunate. And the reason is I believe that the resubdivision is in clear violation of our deed restrictions. And most of the people out there that I talk to are here testifying. We believe that as well. And my concern is the effort that Commissioner Daugherty is trying to put together to do the regional growth planning out that way with a voluntary effort for the community to be involved. If the court approves this resubdivision as proposed, it's my feeling that it will send a very clear message to many in the community that deed restrictions don't make a difference. And that the court is perhaps leaning towards lows who are going in to subdivide and resubdivide. And I think it's very important that we have a community group involved in this planning effort that Commissioner Daugherty is spearheading. And I think it's -- I heard support from you last week for that effort, and I think it's very important. People -- the lick creek, everybody up here is very sensitive right now on what's going on, every issue. And there just seem to be too many problems with this particular subdivision and particularly the deed restriction issue. So I would encourage you to not approve this because I think the spinoff effect could be even more damaging to what the county is trying to help happen in western Travis County.
>> so basically if this application violates the deed restrictions, we should not approve it, which I certainly would do. That basically is what you're saying to us?
>> yeah.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> any more people who would like to give tem today, -- testimony today, please come forward. Two more or three more. These two speakers will be the final speakers today. Unless -- there's another one right there. These three will be the final today unless there is another person who wants to give testimony. If so, please come forward. Okay. Both of y'all can speak. I was just trying to -- I was just urging you to come forward. Okay.
>> my name is janet gilmore. I live in lick creek subdivision. And I don't want to waste your time by repeating anything that others have said, but I completely argue with the speakers that have gone before me. I will say that we are all concerned about a number of issues that have been in our neighborhood for the last almost year, and the questions asked earlier at the very beginning about whether or not this was the same lick creek subdivision that was in the news, and I want to be completely clear that in my opinion it is. I mean, we are part of the subdivision that's been under attack, we feel, from the west cypress hills development. We have a lot of concerns about what's going to happen to our neighborhood, to our wells, to our traffic, to our creeks, to our water quality as a direct result of that subdivision. We've lived in lick creek for 10 years. Last year our pump burned up because of water shortage in our aquifer, and the well was having to work too hard. We have a 200-foot well, which is about 100 feet deeper than a lot of our neighbors have. So as ms. Autry said earlier, there's a genuine real life concern about density in our neighborhood and the effect of density on the supply of water to the people that already live there. And, you know, I'm really grateful to ms. Autry for the knowledge that she has and she was age to bring to you -- she was able to bring to you today. I feel fortunate to have her in our neighborhood. Not every neighborhood would have this. And it seems odd to me that we we need to have that information coming from a person who we happen to be lucky enough to have in our neighborhood. I mean, that being said, I feel like that I'm here at some cost to myself. I'm taking off from work. A number of neighbors couldn't be here, but it's odd to me that we have to come fight for the laws to be enforced. I think everything else that I really want to bring to you has already been said, but I just feel like that -- I appeal to you to not attack us from another direction. As I said, we already feel attacked from the one direction of west sigh pes hills, and -- cypress hills and this is now coming into our neighborhood and opening the door. If you approve this it would be opening the door to the possibility that many more people in our subdivision could resubdivide and the density could get worse. Our traffic on roads that we have to pay to maintain would get worse. And, you know, we just -- we need you to actually uphold the deed restrictions and your own laws in this case. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> are y'all a part of a district, undergroundwater district that has some type of regulation and control of the well water that is pumped by any individual resident, is there any issue up in that particular area where you reside?
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> okay. The reason why I asked that is because another speaker suggested that there was a privacy fence put around a property. And, of course, they actually had a well installed and actually were competing with the neighbor's water. And of course under law, the rule of capture or whatever, that's something that we consider. And that's why I had the question of a district -- water district, undergroundwater district or management. And you talk about density. As long as those folks -- again, what I'm hearing here a lot of the density and with density, you compete for water. And so hearing that also, so water is definitely an issue. And access to the water without the proper regulations and management of that water and who uses it, how much can you use, may be something that needs to be looked at also. I didn't mean to cut you off.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ... You may have seen the signs, but we have one exit on perdinales canyon trail to highway 71. To my knowledge, that is the only way in and out of our subdivision, that's where any notification sign should be placed unless you don't want anyone living in that area to necessarily see it. We all have to stop at that stop sign to get on to highway 71. The signage unless it's mandated that it's placed on the proposed lot means that probably no one would see it. I knew, so I didn't know this, but I understand there was a little 4th of July celebration at the park yesterday. That may be the only way that any of these people knew who may have not received a letter that this meeting was going on, so I think when you look in your gallery and see a few folks that it may be that it never knew t signs relating to west cypress hills development and other developments in our area are plaisd on highway 71. They are typically no bigger than a 10 by 14 with a lot of information. I can tell you as a new texan, you folks drive about 75 miles an hour up 71. For me to read a sign like that that is alongside the road would be extremely dangerous. I would call that to your attention as Commissioners, that signage of that size and that nature is not an effective way to notify those of us who live in that rural area. Thank you for your consideration.
>> thank you very much.
>> my name is cate alexander, my husband is richard sohanan, the president of the property owner's association. It's totally volunteer situation. Not appointed, not paid a fee, so just wanted to let you know that he's not able to be here today but I came in his place also. Really, the one thing that we do have a problem with is just keeping and upholding the restrictions that are already -- and they're available to anybody that requests it. I know that nancy heller has called me more than -- she's the participating broker in the sale of the property, and I can say for one thing she's probably called me at least three or four times in the last year, year and a half, to receive copies of the restrictions, which, as a former real estate agent myself, I find it a little bit strange that she didn't keep that and that she has not reviewed those restrictions so that she could tell her potential buyers in the subdivision that these restrictions, you know, are in the -- our covenants. Okay? We need to uphold the restrictions that we have as they are right now. They're very general rowtion, I would say, as far as anybody that is buying property in the area. They have very minimum restrictions, but we are limited to having both a septic and a well on our property. We do not have any kind of public utilities available to us. So we are concerned about the water and with the new subdivision that has been west -- I forget the name but y'all know what I'm talking about, if the subdivision rules are not upheld, all it's going to do is lay ground for the other covenants that we have in restrictions to be not enforceable. That means if somebody wants to move in, we have the mobile home or a, you know, not -- build a house that is not within the minimum requirements, not bring the paperwork necessary to the president of the architectural control board to get their plans approved. I mean it's just going to start a big roller coaster type of environment to happen where we're not going to be able to uphold the integrity of the ranch, and our subdivision. So we don't want, you know, one -- something to happen that is going to start that process, so we can at least, when it comes the opportunity and if there's enough people that are involved and interested, if we get the chance, we'll maybe review the subdivision restrictions and covenants and change them, but at this point we don't have that opportunity to do it. So what we're trying to do is just uphold the ones that we already have in effect, basically that, you know, everybody has a right to purchase property and do what they want, but we do have the restrictions and that needs to be enforced. Thank you.
>> thank you very much. Yes, sir.
>> your honor, Commissioners, my name is dan contrare, I'm here representing george martinez who is associate judge for the first administrative judicial region of Texas and his niece mercedes mcclellan. Your honor, it will be very unpopular to say this but what I'm hearing over and over and over is i've got mine, I'm going to keep you from getting yours. The secretary of state of Texas confirms -- may I approach the court, your honor? I only brought one copy of this but you can share it. Interestingly the ranch association is a for profit domestic corporation, not nonprofit. It put in there the history of the entity. You've already heard this morning that the deed restrictions were not filed when land was sold. They were filed a couple of years later, so land is sold without deed restrictions. You then look at the association which has told you today that it represents all the land owners. We never heard of it. Contract we bought the land under says there is no association. There was testimony a few minutes ago that we don't have a structure for collecting dues to fix the road. The association was forfeited for not paying taxes and filing reports in '84, forfeited again in '94 and suddenly got revived in 2003. If there is a homeowner association, we would like to know about it. We would like to know they have some chain of tight frl the -- title from the original developers. We know there should be some legal successor to the folks who made the plats, wells and simon, we do know there's no annual dues. We don't know who this association is. They've shown up today and told you they represent all the owners. They don't. None of your property owners that spoke today are named wells and simon. Let's begin with that. Everybody bought property. Everybody is in the same status at judge martinez and ms. Mcclellan. Mr. Heckman responded to my inquiry of sales up and down the original plat t original 3,000 acres since 1970. Saying if there ever was intended there be 100 feet on either side or 200 feet on every side, you can't tell from the deed restrictions. There's a bunch of different possibilities, an nobody brought that to your attention yesterday. But you can't tell from the deed restrictions what's intended and if there ever was 100 feet on either side or 200 feet on either side, I'm quoting from the memo it's been violating dozens of times up and down the road. Nobody talks about lot 9. That was split into three plots. Approximately 100 acres. They weren't platted as subdivisions never went through the resubdivision process. I'll defer to staff on this, but the information i've been given is they were sold as five lots out of lot nine with metes and bounds descriptions. To get county permits the buyers had to come before the county, they were all routinely approved by Commissioner's court. Everything out there has been approved by the Commissioner's court as best I can tell. But they were sold as metes and bounds descriptions, not subdivided. And the explanation that i've been given is otherwise property owners would be in a pickle, we automatically approve those. Again, that's the precedent that my clients have relied on. Now, in addition, we get into a touchy area and I find far too much time on west law trying to unravel this. Article 1, section 26 of the Texas constitution, those of white house spent time in first semester property in law school were talk against the rule against person duties. Argue 1, section 26 of your Texas constitution specifically provides perpetuities on contrary to a free government and shall never been alleluiad. What you have in this perpetuity ceases when the sun ceases to shine and the river flows no more. If that isn't perpetuity, I don't know what is. What you have is a very poorly-constructed deed restriction. Nobody can tell what it means if it means 200 feet on one side or 100 feet on all sides or 100 feet on one side, it was never put into the chain of title until long after the land was sold and it goes on forever. Now, in 2735, your successors, at some point are going to say, hey,, this is old, you could have had this limited to 99 years, you could have provided for some way for the property owners to renew it. Property owners haven't done that. In fact, if there is an association of property owners, we don't know where they're at. There's another rule in Texas that we hang our hat on quasi estoppel. Lot 8 was split up into nine lots. Quasi estoppel, a brand-new case from beaumont that is the best writing i've found, preclude as party from asserting to another's disadvantage a right inconsistent with the position previously taken. The doctrine applies when it would be unconscionable to allow a party to maintain a position inconsistent with one to which the party has acquiesced or from which the party has accepted a benefit. And it cites lopez at southwest 3rd, 864th, there's a long list of cases of quasi estoppel. You had testimony a minute ago from a buyer who bought her land last year. She got the benefit of the slicing up of lots that has been done in violation of whatever deed restrictions are out there. What you're also hearing is that everybody else having accepted the benefit, they're now asking you to close the door. Your applicant is named martinez. All of these folks show up and tell you that all of a sudden you already have one property owner, five more will overburden western Travis County, it will result in plague pestulance, destruction, totally destroy civilization as we know it. Baloney. The testimony from ms. Autrey, she's asking you to deal with many issues in hind sight, yes, probably could have been done better. She want dwrows overturn the tnr, the lcra rules, she bought in 1971. She complains at great length that Travis County doesn't do things the way they were done 20 or 30 years ago and you don't do things the way blanco county does. Our clients bought in Travis County. They expected to be dealt with under the rules that were in existence at the time they bought in Travis County. They were not told there was an association. They understood they could do anything they wanted to with their land. Because everyone else had ignored the deed restrictions. And now you have all these folks coming in and saying, well, closed barn door, we need to go back and start ebb forcing things right now. We will have an exception request filed later today with the staff. We will assert that five new hoamdzs, five new land owners I should say, all of whom live outside the area and may be here at most a day or two a year, will be a minimal burden on the existing infrastructure. We'll ask the Commissioner's court to approve that exception. We look forward to working with the neighbors to address the concern, if it's time to get all the land owners, as suggested in the deed restrictions, together, and let's all sit down and form an association and work out the way to do this right from here on, we're perfectly willing to do that. I'll even volunteer. I'll come to Austin on any chance I can find on judge martinez's bill. But you can't close the barn door on my clients and say, sorry, you got a bum deal, we're going to cut things off as of some date last year. That is not equitable. We'll ask the court to approve our request for variance. We will work with our neighbors to address their concerns. We're going to ask the court do what is right, let us go forward on that. Thank you.
>> yes, in the middle.
>> my name is mary francis and I'm certainly not an attorney and formulating what I'm going to say as I listen to this gentleman. I bought 3 parcels out there in the last 13 months and there very definitely is an association, I'm building a house, those plans had to be approved. Very limited when we pulled the title report there were ccnrs I had to adhere to in buying that property, all three of them. I bought them knowing that's what my neighbors expected of me and would think what the governing body would be enforcing those ccnr's that are of report. We have all bought out there. I don't know when this particular lot, when they purchased that, if that was before the ccnr's, they're very old ccnr's but very definitely of record. There's no question of that. Then I guess i've got to add my name to the list. Appears to me that this is simply somebody trying to make a lot of money on a little piece of land without regard to how it might affect their neighbors, and that doesn't seem right to me. That's all i've got to say.
>> well, thank you very much. Ma'am? The good news is no action will be taken today. The good news is that if the lawyer for Travis County, I'm sure y'all will have an opportunity to exchange legal memos, letters, et cetera, between now and when the matter goes back on the Commissioner's court. The question has been raised about the applicability of the deed restrictions and I guess at some point the court needs to land on that. The other question is what Travis County standards are in place. I do think we have a responsibility to apply them. But we have to apply them even handedly. And so today's hearing reminds me that in this democratic country of ours, reasonable people do disagree, and we are lucky to make the decision ultimately t good news is that my mind is still open, but I do appreciate the input that y'all have given us, and, joe, do we know when this might be back on the court's agenda? If we can pass around a legal pad and if y'all would like to be present, if you leave us your names and addresses, we will make sure that we send you written notice. The recommendation about notification that I recall is that if we post a sign it is best to post it at highway 71.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> okay, we'll do that, and we'll give those present today who leave their names and addresses with us notification by letter. My guess, joe, is that we're looking at what, 2 to 3 weeks?
>> judge.
>> 2 weeks is what joe was saying. Yes, sir?
>> I need to look at the application on this one very carefully. And then contact you and give you legal advice on when we may need to take it up.
>> so is that one week or three weeks.
>> could be one week, could be three weeks.
>> let's start off with two, but you'll get a letter probably -- is it best to get addresses or phone numbers?
>> why don't we get phone numbers and e-mail addresses, that way we can get notice to you almost immediately. So what I'm suggesting is this may not be the final opportunity to have comments. We will not be posted for public hearing again, but normally on action items we do have an opportunity for residents to give comments. We have all tried to keep good and accurate notes of comments given today. The other thing is that if we have a staff recommendation before this matter is on the court's agenda again, when we do the e-mail, we will share that with you and the reasons why. And give you some advance notice of what it is that we propose to do so you can maybe get your thoughts together before you come down. And obviously if you agree with the recommendation, coming down at patting Commissioner Gomez on the back will be [inaudible] but if you reject, we want to hear from you. How does that sound? There's a motion to close the public hearing. What I'm hearing from tom is one to three weeks from now we'll have it back on the agenda. Tom sort of implied maybe closer to three weeks than one.
>> I didn't mean to imply anything, judge.
>> given that next week is the hospital district and this could be a lengthy item, can we at least say it's going to be a minimum of two because we're not going to have time on next week's agenda for something that is this important. We've already lost an hour.
>> okay. Leave your phone numbers and if you have an e-mail address, leave that with us also and we will give direct notice to those present today and try to get another sign posted out near the intersection. There's a motion and second to close the public hearing. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you for your input.
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: Friday, October 28, 2005 12:52 PM