Travis County Commissioners Court
July 6, 2004
Item 14
Number 14, consider and take appropriate action on a request for a variance to chapter 48.010 minimum lot sizes for a septic system for a single family residence in precinct 3, west lake highland's, resubdivision of lot 3, block 3 a.
>> this is a request to vary minimum lot size for on site sewage facilities. The -- this is a situation, hopefully y'all can see this. The resub that was done involves these lots here. You can see that they're all the same size except for the one that is asking for the variance.
>> what's the size of those lots?
>> they are approximately a half acre all, except for the one asking for the variance and it's slightly over an acre.
>> okay.
>> there are -- has been information submitted with regards to why that is. The bottom line is is that there are two structures on this lot. The owners -- the original owner of the lot and the simmons will tell you that the fact that it's only one lot was a mistake. There are two lots on the house. There are two on site sewage facilities. They're all permitted. The idea to allow this subdivision is to offer the owners of this lot the opportunity to leverage these -- the two residences on separate pieces of property. The state minimum lot size under 285 is a half acre. This lot wouldn't vary that. Travis County's chapter 84 has a three quarter acre minimum and that's what we're asking it to be varied from.
>> so what is the importance of that? I mean if we have -- if we require three quarters of an acre and the state requires 50%, or half of an acre, I assume there's a reason for our requirement.
>> I'm guessing, judge, that if a half acre is good, three quarters of an acre is better, particularly in the typical western part of the county, there's more opportunity for a system to find a place on three quarters of an acre than a half acre. These lots, that is not an issue on these lots.
>> on these lots we think half an acre is sufficient.
>> yes, sir, they already have permitted systems on them.
>> so is this formulated -- sorry judge.
>> why is access required by us if they have per mised systems already?
>> for the resub. They want to -- there are two houses and two ossf's on a single lot. They want to put a line between those two houses and two on site sewage facilities and make two lots out of the one so they can be owned separately.
>> and we approved the half an acre lots before?
>> yes, sir, by variance, yes.
>> and in backup there's reference made to a public hearing on August 10th, 2004. How does that affect the action proposed today?
>> I'm not aware of the nature of that public hearing, judge.
>> let me try to explain, brett. What is on the agenda today is a variance from your on site sewage facility rules, which would be necessary to do the resubdivision that is the subject of the public hearing that has come up.
>> okay.
>> so if we take action today, will we make the public hearing unnecessary?
>> no, you still have to hole it because it's a requirement of the statute. If you deny the variance today, sort of pre-ordains that you're not going to approve the resubdivision when it comes up. If you approve the variance today then it will make it possible to approve the resubdivision once you have the hearing.
>> why would you have a public hearing on something that we've already -- why wouldn't you delay this action today at least until the day of the public hearing? I mean why -- if we take action, there's people coming down and testifying on August 10th are coming down and testifying in vain.
>> this is from a variance from chapter 84. The public hearing in August is for a subdivision. Different things, although obviously they're connected.
>> from a practical perspective, judge, you're correct. I mean it wouldn't be -- it's not illegal to do it the way it's been posted. I'm not sure why it was posted that way.
>> from a good government perspective, what is the best action to take?
>> we could hear this again on the subdivision if that was the pleasure of the court.
>> I think what we want -- we have two choices. I mean if we have the authority to take this action today, then are we having a public hearing on something other than today's action?
>> technically, yes. Technically the action item for you today is a variance from the septic system rules. The item that would be associated with the public hearing is approval of the actual resubdivision.
>> so typically we do not have a public hearing on the variance requested?
>> no.
>> and it's separate from the resubdivision?
>> yes, it's where the septic system rules and the subdivision rules overlap. You've got two separate sets of rules but they're dealing with the same subject matter, so to approve the resubdivision you have to grant the variance from the septic system rules, so that is what is going on.
>> let me ask the question a slightly different way. Let's say there was no resubdivision going on. Would this still be an appropriate item because they are basically out of compliance with our ossf requirements?
>> well, they're in compliance. As I understand it, there are two houses on this one lot, they each have their own septic system and each of those septic systems was issued a permit and those permits met with all the requirements that were in effect when they were issued. What has happened since then is Travis County adopted the three quarter acre lot size rule. Okay, which we enforced via subdivision, so they're sitting there two houses on one lot and my understanding what is going on is they're trying to get loans on the houses and it's the lender that is saying two houses on one lot is not a normal situation, could be you have an illegal lot. We want you to go to the county and get the county to bless it so we know these are legal lots and, you know, collateral for our loan isn't somehow endangered by the legal status, so they're really just sort of clearing up an anomylous situation. It was legal when it was permitted. Since it was permitted we've adopted this three quarter acre lot size rule and that's what they need the variance from.
>> if it lends any clarity, this is a situation where one of the houses needs a certain amount of work done to make it the level of the individual who wants to live in it. This is a mother and a daughter t daughter wants to move on the adjacent house, be able to borrow money to finish it for elder care for the mother living on the other lot.
>> ... Decide to turn down the resubdivision request, how does that affect the item number 14?
>> it basically makes it meaningly. You can approve it today. What they really need is the approval of the resubdivision. You could theoretically grant the variance today and still deny the resubdivision, although, you've at least removed one of your grounds for rejecting it if you go ahead and approve the variance today. I mean, judge, I agree with you from a good government perspective it would be better to take them up at the same time.
>> is there another motion? Is there an anti good government motion? Move approval for variance.
>> motion and second to approve. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion.
>> I'm going to abstain on this. I would like to see it from a good government perspective if they be at the same time. I'm going to wait until that happens. When is the other one supposed to come back?
>> August 10th.
>> one against, one is for and one abstention and the motion still pass, right?
>> well, you need the majority of the quorum, so you need three votes today for this to pass.
>> if somebody needs to go get a drink of water, we'd have three and you could be 2-1.
>> I think it's those present...
>> are you thirsty?
>> I mean he's present.
>> not if he's off the dais at the time of the vote.
>> I think we ought to hold off on it too.
>> all in favor of the motion.
>> I'm pulling down, Commissioner Gomez can... [multiple voices]
>> motion withdrawn.
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 12:51 PM