Travis County Commissioners Court
July 13, 2004
Item 17
We did get legal advice on number 17 which is consider and take appropriate action on request to approve a plat for recording in precinct 3, resubdivision of lot 10, lick creek ranch subdivision phase 1, resides plat, six lots, 13.34 acres, outback trail. No fiscal required, sewage service to be provided by onsite wastewater facility under lcra jurisdiction, outside all municipal e.t.j. After court last week, we did learn we needed this item back on the agenda this week. Otherwise various legal requirements would be triggered. And so instead of taking a possible two or three weeks to mull over this, we had one week. Joe, you look like you have opening remarks.
>> real brief. Because I know there are presentations that that the public would like to make on this subject. I just want to I guess preface this with the -- perhaps a reminder that we use the subdivision regulations, we use deed restrictions, we use septic system regulations as a way to affect the way a community would want to live in an area. I mean, those are basically tools to implement what is otherwise known as a comprehensive development plan for an area. So it is the carrying out of a basically standards of living. This area that we're talking about, lick creek ranch, was originally platted in 1968. Almost 40 years ago. As a matter of fact, a lot of the property out there goes by the name of ranch. Simon ranch, lick creek ranch, wells ranch, pedernales canyon ranch. It really reflects the character of the area 40 years ago which was basically a ranch area subdivided into large lots or what was really recreational use around Lake Travis. What you are seeing right now is a conversion of that to more urban type of living. The urban area is reaching out to this what would otherwise used to be a rural area. Because of that you are seeing the desire for resubdivision and in a way it's challenging the notion, the community standard for how people want to live in this area. And I think what you have seen in agenda items here for a series of items is that tension that's going on between the rural to urban conversion. I say that as a preface because I think you have -- you are at a moment of decision here where you have some discretion. You have received legal advice on the deed restrictions, which is one of the tools. You have your subdivision standards which were adopted for how subdivisions will be done. One of the -- and you have your onsite septic system rules which don't necessarily apply here because the lcra is in charge of septic systems around Lake Travis. But there are challenges to those standards. And these are not clear cut yes or no. Quite often they are judgment calls. And I want to point out one of those and it has to deal with transportation. Section 82-202 d of our current standards specifies that access to all new subdivisions shall be from and all lots shall have frontage on a public street accepted for maintenance or a private street meeting or exceeding public street standards and maintained by the poerpbs under a recorded perpetual agreement, or a dedicated street constructed to county standards and under posted construction performance fiscal security pending acceptance for maintenance. Or a dedicated street pending or under construction which is adequately secured for posting fiscal for construction and maintenance. All of that is to say that we intended to protect the interest of the consumer. That they would be able to get out to a publicly maintained road, that we would be able to get service in and out of that subdivision. The rules do allow the court to make an exception to that. A variance. And that variance is -- requires us to look and see what kind of impact might occur if you grant that variance. Now, this particular applicant has come in making one lot into five lots. And so you look at that and you say, okay, what kind of impact might that have on what are now gravel roads, narrow gravel roads that are actually private easements. So there are no paved surfaces out there. And I might argue that at most you've got 50 additional cars per day coming down that gravel road. If you take this decision discreetly in and of itself, you might be able to argue, well, that's not a great impact. 50 cars are 50 cars, but at what point does the fulcrum change and 50 becomes more and you actually incur an impact. So I think you have to look at this in is -- not just a discreet action but what potential might there be for a series of actions taken which do create an impact. In a way, what precedents might this variance create on downstream. Now, I think you have to do this in the context of what is happening in western Travis County as a whole. You have a rural area that is convert to go an urban area. So yes, one lot going to five perhaps we could come to the point of saying no problem. But in an area which is ripe for further conversion, then you have to look at what's going to happen one after the next after the next, and at what point in time do you say we really need to get back to the community standard that is set for how people want to live in an area. And I think that is the decision that you have to wrestle with on this particular decision. Both from the standpoint of transportation, but perhaps also in water and wastewater. The issue likely will be does it meet the standards. Is it technically possible to get an onsite sewage system on these lots. Next to wells that may serve the same lots. So the question you might ask the lcra, and we have a representative here, is does it technically meet the standard, but what happens if this happens time and again. So I think that's -- you have discretion. I guess I would -- from my perspective, you are at a turning point. I would use that discretion carefully in light of what's going on in the larger scale. And perhaps it is time to look at that in a more serious way before granting variances. That's all have I to say.
>> last week the applicant's lawyer advised that he would file a request for a variance.
>> that's correct.
>> so was a request for variance in fact filed?
>> I believe that's -- it has been filed.
>> [inaudible] receive a letter from the attorney for the applicant basically saying -- making the argument that this should be approved because it places a minimal burden on the infrastructure. So I would -- I would certainly construe that as a request for a variance.
>> what date? That's July 7. And in that request, whatever it is, the reason is what, now? The reason for the request?
>> as joe said, the standard in the roll [inaudible] county code will place a minimal burden on the existing road infrastructure.
>> okay, minimal impact on roads is what's in the letter.
>> yes.
>> now, to get to the heart of the matter before we start taking comments here, so we have legal issues that have been brought into question. And the one we heard most about last week was deed restrictions. Right?
>> right.
>> and the applicant's response to us last week as to them was what? That they did not apply to the applicant? Or should not?
>> I think --
>> why don't we do this. One would be deed restrictions. When you come basically we want to you address whatever your position is on deed restrictions. Who would be basically impact/repairance and does that relate more to transportation --
>> yes.
>> -- impact on the road infrastructure?
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> third one is the lcra issue, and we have a representative from lcra here. That goes more to the septic system.
>> water, well, yes, the septic system, that's correct.
>> antiseptic system related issues -- and septic system related issues. Is there a fourth issue we need to get comment on?
>> I think there were core issues. There were other issues related to public notice and water quality and general development controls. But I think those three highlight the most important ones.
>> okay. Then let's put those under other. So when you give your comments, if you relate them to one of these four, it would help us make our decision. Our goal is to make that decision today. At the end of our discussion of this item, which hopefully will be around 11:00. Who wants to be first?
>> judge, will you let us have any kind of comments before we get started on the public testimony? Because I think in my case it might be a little helpful.
>> here's where I?m landing. The analogy with Karen getting her house renovated. When I moved my gas line, I had to completely come under the new codes and requirements of the city of Austin related to moving it. If I didn't want to come under the new code, I had to keep my gas stove where it was. I?m going through the same thing here. If this thing stays with the current configuration, you get to keep your grandfathering as the lot is envisioned. But if they want to resubdivide, you kick in the new requirements. And joe is absolutely correct when we talk about we spent a lot of time and attention and detail and months hammering out consumer protections. Travis County was tired of having developers come in, connect things to jeep trails and then dump it on the public coffers to fix problems from homeowners that were left and all of their neighbors that were left on the way side. So if this particular motion is put forward as it is stated to resubdivide and wanting to keep the grandfathering, I will vote no.
>> any other comments from court members?
>> I think that I remember spending all that time as well on all of these issues, and so it is important to remember that it's not just the impact of one person but the -- look at the whole picture, the big picture and see, you know, what the total impact is and what the resultant problems would be. That the taxpayers would handle. As opposed to just the owners. So yeah, I am not for any variance.
>> yes, sir.
>> having been the precinct 3 Commissioner for a little over a year and a half now, it is becoming glaringly clear to me that what was good in 1988 is no longer the case in 2004. And probably going forward. And being a person that is a pretty big property rights guy, it really puts me in a spot where it is sometimes difficult for me to make, you know, that decision based on whether something is right or whether it's wrong. But one thing for sure, I am in the middle of what I consider to be the most important thing that we're going to do in western Travis County probably in the next foreseeable future and that is working with the landowners, working with the residents, working with the developers, but there needs to be a different direction in western Travis County and I think that most people understand that. And I?m going to be very supportive of that. That being said, I mean everybody knows that, you know, balancing that is going to be difficult, but I think everybody that's going to participate in this knows that's going to be the case. I do think that we need to look at these things with the eye towards what are our intentions from this point forward because there probably will be and there probably are examples of, okay, well, that wasn't the case back then and there are people that have done those things. I?m sure that if I were to go out there that I would probably find things in a lot of neighbors' yards or on their property or, you know, on the creek or whatever that some people might go, well, that's not the right thing to do. You know what, I?m not trying to correctnessly the past, but I think that we need to have an eye towards where we're headed and I think that it is clear that there needs to be a different direction, people need to be listened to and that we need to move forward in a way that I think that this, you know, western Travis County wants that to take place. I mean whenever I get letters that have oppositions, major oppositions to things like this, it's certainly going to affect me. I?m certainly and I?m anxious to hear the testimony. I mean I can -- I probably could write about 20 of the testimonys and I haven't even talked to or seen the people and probably write some of the testimony from the applicant. That being said, I mean I?m certainly willing to hear it all out and go forward, but I want you to know where I?m coming from on this.
>> judge, I am ready to hear from the public. As you know, we do have some very serious challenges as we look at urban position, how it actually encroaches into the rural area. There's no doubt about it, and of course we also have to look at -- and be very careful at how we set precedent. And if there is a precedent setting situations, I think they need to be in the direction of what we have tried to do as far as new [indiscernible] is concerned as far as Travis County involvement in these type of developments. So again, I really have some real legitimate concerns. I remember I asked a couple of questions last time before when you came before us and some of those questions, an example, we looked at the water issue and I made mention of water districts, creation of water districts. How do you protect yourself and make sure you have the volume of water in areas. Just a whole lot of other things that I think that we need to look at, but I do not want to be a part of creating maybe a possibility of even another colonial. We have colonials in different parts of the county right now, and I tell you to resolve a colonial is a very monumental task. I have one in my precinct called kennedy ridge, and of course that's water and a whole lot of quality issues that sometime we take for granted aren't just there for anybody and everybody here in Travis County. So, again, I need to look at this, hear it from you, but I tell you one thing, I?m not real gig to maybe support -- going to support a situation where it was causing conflict and problems of existing residents, especially if we can't comply with the new standards. So I?m really concerned about that because [inaudible] again I?m ready to hear whatever you have to say, but I want to let you know where I?m coming from as far as my vote is concerned. Thank you.
>> joe, a public road or private road?
>> private roads.
>> the private roads, the county standards?
>> no.
>> the lcra. Does this application pose any water or wastewater issues? For the lcra representative. If you would come to the microphone, give us your name and your response, I would appreciate it. While he's coming up, joe, if we could get you to move to one end of that table. Yes, sir. Ou are not mr. Lcra, are you?
>> I?m bob crittenden, I work on the staff of the lower colorado river authority and it is our responsibility to perform the limited subdivision review that we have which is primarily the onsite sewage facilities program. And also the non-point source pollution control ordinance in this area.
>> and do you have issues with this application or not?
>> at this point in time, this particular application meets our minimum requirements and we have no grounds for rejection at this point in time.
>> and the requirement at this time is --
>> from the onsite facilities is that the lots are considered large enough to construct onsite sewage facilities, which is a minimum of one acre. And it doesn't address the cost of those facilities or anything like that, but primarily they do meet the requirement of being larger than one acre and that it -- it's not going to create additional roadways, you know, to go in and serve each of these individual lots.
>> any questions?
>> let me ask one question. Critenden.
>> critenden.
>> bob. I?m tkpwaeurld. -- Gerald. Isn't it true that lcra is giving very strong consideration to, for lack of a better way to put it, to upgrading or changing some of the non-point source, all of the involvement environmentally speaking? I think that joe beall and I have discussed that and isn't there direction from you all --
>> lcra is currently evaluating the non-point source pollution control ordinance and is in the process of reviewing that and upgrading it to be applicable -- well, to clean up some of the language in the ordinance and make any necessary changes in that ordinance.
>> and bob, is it safe to say that that is probably -- we're probably going to have more stringent --
>> in the future --
>> rules than we have right now?
>> right now it's probably more clarification than anything else.
>> I think that's important to know because that is a direction that we're going to be heading. That I think is going to be -- that needs to be pertinent. You know, with this application. Thank you.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> what I just heard is several members of the court have already prejudged that. I would hope that is not the case. I would hope that we were going to have an opportunity to be listened to, to have our input listened to and heard. I have here your out of town developer. Would you introduce yourself and tell the court what you're trying to do.
>> hi. My name is mercedes (indiscernible). My uncle and I purchased this property. I actually live out on the other side of the bridge. I've lived there for two years and it's absolutely beautiful. I've walked this property probably every weekend for the last five months. It's something that I love, something that I feel is beautiful, and nothing that I would want to hurt in any matter. The people that I?m selling this property to are actually friends and a couple are going to be vacation homes. We've probably gone over this plat a billion times with the surveyor going back and forth, back and forth because we've walked the property, trying to make sure that it was divided in a manner that was -- that every single property owner has a brilliant view, that it wouldn't mess up the grotto in the center. So every person would actually own a part of that so nobody could mess that up. Basically I love it out there and it's something that I wouldn't do anything to to harm, so to speak.
>> I think the question to the court was to grant variances and we have done that in order to better manage subdivision, resubdivisions in rural areas.
>> judge, there was talk about the precedent this creates. We looked at the precedents that have already been created over 35 years out there. We ought to be able to hang our hat on the precedent, the rules that Travis County has had in effect for 35 years instead of suddenly telling us over our backs all of a sudden we're going to change the rules after your into this. I would submit to the court the correct way to do this is let's agree September first, October 1st, August 1st to start the new rules. We'll help you develop the new rules. We have an interest in doing that. But don't do it over our backs at this late date this far in the process.
>> sir, these are not new rules. These rules have been on the books for more than five years. We're not talking about some mythical we might develop new rules in the future. We went through a long, hard struggle. For eight years I represented subdivisions in western Travis County. That's where it all came from. We're not talking about mythical new rules. These are the existing subdivision rules of Travis County. And they are not a surprise. And your client has one of two choices. You can have your 13-acre lot and live under the grandfathering or if you choose to resubdivide, and I respect you about what you want to do, you're going to have to come under the new rules, which are not the new rules, they're the old rules at this point. So pick one or the other, but you can't have both. And I did not prejudge you. I took what you said last week and spent the last week spending a lot of time and attention dealing with this. And with eight years of history about dealing with this exact situation. So this is no longer new, it is the same old, same old and I?m going to land exactly where island on every other one. We're going to hold people to the Travis County standards. If you want to get out of those standards, you've got one lot. Pick one. Can't have both.
>> this is the land we're talking about. We note that although the basic facts, the precedent, the law haven't changed, tnr has withdrawn its recommendation of approval and is now making no recommendation. We understand that sometimes consideration other than facts precedent and law are the basis for decisions, but facts, precedent and law are the basis for our review of our decisions. We're here before you today as citizens and taxpayers of Travis County. We're not outside developers. We live out there. We intent to be out there. We intend to be part of the neighborhood. Our friends and relatives are going to be part of that neighborhood. We remind you that the court has the duty and responsibility to protect individuals from groups who overreach and infringe the rights of others, and sometimes to protect those in the groups from themselves. This is the property we're talking about, lot 10. Now, we didn't have to go through this. Under current tnr procedure and precedent, if we sold the property under metes and bounds, it almost certainly would have been automatically approved by the Commissioners court. It always has been up to now. We're penalized for doing the right thing, hiring the best surveyor we could find, dealing with a reputable real estate agency. Coming in and talking to your staff at great length, asking what's the right thing to do. And this is where we end today. If we had sold it in metes and bounds, nobody would have said anything. By our deed there's no mention of a mandatory homeowners association. Deed restrictions 101, all duts must be resolved in favor of the free and unrestricted use of the premises. All doubts must be resolved in favor of the must be resolved in dispute of the premises. Texas property code, Texas law could have included Travis County in that, but the Texas property code tells us how to do it right, how to do it right, and that wasn't done at lick creek ranch. 200.06, a property owners association shall file the dedicated instrument in the real property records of each county. How to do it right, a private organization exists to police the restrictions. At lick creek, this is from our deeds, only an architectural control committee was formed. And there haven't been any successors. Lick creek homeowners association, they talked to you last week, they're a private nonprofit corporation, (indiscernible) for not paying franchise taxes. From the testimony on page 6, my name is kate alexander, it's a totally volunteer situation, not appointed, not paid a fee. If you think that's a homeowners association as referred to in the deeds, ain't there. I include an example of how to do it right in the polly ranch estates case. That's how you do it. You say that the future owners of lots of the subdivision all agree that all these restrictions shall run with the land. That's not in our deeds. Here's how to do it right. From the Austin court of appeals down the street from you, you have a grant from the original developer with a right to approve building plans and endorse covenants. Texas property code 202.004, restrictive covenants shall be enforced by somebody designated by the owner of real property. Nobody was ever designated in lick creek ranch. Let's look very closely at the deed restrictions. You have a couple of slides on that. May be subdivided into lots containing not less than one acre of land in a 100 minimum width in each direction. Does that mean every direction has to be 100 feet minimum or just one? Or if you have any lots out there less than an acre they're in violation. These codes are asking you to enforce deed restrictions. In checking of the records, I believe ms. Autry did a subdivision in pedernales ranch in '84. While her lot doesn't have 100 feet in one direction. A little bit under, but she's coming in asking you to enforce these restrictions on us. There's another restriction, 200 feet deep in every direction. Now, does that mean 200 feet in every direction or one direction? Or does it have to be two acres. You go to another deed restrictions that says there has to be a minimum of three acres per tract with a minimum 200 feet in width in any direction. How many tracts out there are at least three acres? Austin court of appeals, ambiguity exists and the provision is susceptible to two or more means. If the covenants are susceptible to more than one interpretation, it's ambiguous. Texas supreme court, the restrictive clause must be construed strictly against the party trying to enforce it. There is nobody with a right to enforce it to begin with. There is no association. The lick creek subdivision map, you will get a violation of the deed restrictions. Travis County is also -- has also waived every violation. I included the memorandum from your executive manager dated July first. At least eight of the original lots have been subdivided through metes and bounds. The new and remaining tracts have less than 100 feet of frontage. Most if not all of these subdivisions were done without Travis County's approval. But when the folks came in to see you, they got a permit. The Commissioners court signed off on it. And you're now telling us sorry, we changed that sometime in the past, we're not going to let you do that any more.
>> are you saying we signed off on what?
>> you signed off on approving the permits for the property to have been sold by metes and bounds.
>> what kind of permits?
>> building permits, permits for construction. I have that from tnr.
>> okay.
>> that it was done just as a matter of course. In fact, I was told -- you don't have to worry about getting this approved. If you don't approve it just have it surveyed and settled by metes and bounds, we automatically approve that. We're being penalized for trying to do it right. Ms. Ought try's testimony from last week, she says you can't approve the resubdivision if it violates any established rights. If there are deed restrictions for the subdivision, that's something you have to take into account. There are no deed restrictions. The court's said consider a number of prior enforcements. Ask these folks, how many times in 35 years have you sued to enforce anything out there? Ask that question.
>> if we asked that question is how many subdivisions actually violate the deed restrictions? What's the answer to that one?
>> I don't know. I'll tell you that the staff told me that's the staff's comment, you can't throw a pencil at the map without hitting a violation.
>> judge, I think I can provide some explanation on that.
>> I was up looking at travis central appraisal district maps until 2:00 o'clock in the morning. I counted 36 lots that are subject to this deed restriction, and that's basically the lots fronting on the pedernales river, lick creek canyon. Of those 36 lots, six of them were resubdivided. Travis County approved two of those. And on all of those occasions, basically the lot -- the new lots had 100 feet of road frontage or something close to that. There was one with 90 feet, one with 82 feet. There were five or six that were resubed that didn't have about 100 feet of road frontage. Travis County didn't approve two of those. So if you look at the deed restriction as basically a requirement that there be 100-foot of road frontage and you can make the case for that because at least six lot owners resubed and left all of the new lots with 100 feet, so that's clearly how they were interpreting that deed restriction, then as often as not, the resubdivisions have complied with the deed restrictions. You have six that comply. You have six that didn't comply, none of which were approved by Travis County. So if we grant the variance though, your lots will have how many feet as frontage?
>> judge, you will have two lots with 29 feet of frontage and one lot with 50 feet of frontage.
>> and the other three have 100?
>> yes.
>> 29 is a long way from 100. 50 is also.
>> I believe you're talking about lot c, which is a lakefront lot. That's to give that lot access to -- it's just road access.
>> well, 29 feet would just be a road down to that lot, judge.
>> that is due to terrain on that specific lot. That was the best way to get that lot access.
>> okay.
>> ms. Autry's testimony from last week, there are some narrow lots out there that have been there for 20 years and how many times have they been to court to try to enforce that. Water, we waive that argument because tcra has said it's okay. We move on to the infrastructure argument. I've included a map that shows the existing highway 71, 2322 in the area. We don't understand the subdivision rules, and I don't think the staff has any confidence that they'll hold up either. Tnr 82202. D includes as the last line, a subdivision includes a resubdivision. But if subdivisions include resubdivisions per the definitions, why does 82202. B begin with a line about new subdivisions. Streets of a new subdivision shall be aligned with existing streets of adjoining property. Now, i've read the retionz. I don't know. It this really a new subdivision or a resubdivision of an existing lot and an existing subdivision. This is not previously unplatted land. I believe I?m correct in saying that tnr isn't 100% sure how to interpret section 82. We don't know either. Knuckles says on 76, it's a new subdivision and a resubdivision at the same time. Really you're looking at two sets of requirements. Because it's a resubdivision you have to look at the deed restrictions. We've already shown you those don't apply, they never did, they're not in effect now. But it's a subdivision of property, so all the normal subdivision regulations do apply. The rules conflict. There's no plain language. Tnr's memo to the Commissioners court, you may make an exception if it will place a minimal burden on the existing road infrastructure. I looked for a definition of mental burden in Travis County's regs. Not there. I looked in the city of Austin. It's not there. All the government forms say filling this out is a minimal burden on the taxpayer. Nobody has defined minimal burden. I then look -- you have a graphic of the 50-foot easement. 50-foot around our property, our roads will connect to that 50-foot easement. You will have five new owners maximum. Tnr standards is 10 trips per day per owner, extremely and impossible because most of the folks who want to buy this property are from out of town. But let's assume minimal burden. I turned to black's law dictionary, which I still have and it makes a great paper weight. Burden means anything that I imposes either a restikt active or onerous load on such commerce. And the case cited in black's where you have construction of a via duct that carries a street over railroad tracks, construction and operation of railroad tracks on the via duct is not an additional burden. What is a burden? That's like getting a traffic ticket, getting involved in a fender bender, dealing with a child's routine illness, having an argument at work, losing your car keys. Those are minimal burdens cited by duke university medical center of all people. We have a 50-foot roadway easement. The 29-foot lot, mr. Knuckles correctly describes, is a roadway. It goes down to the lot that's on the river. You've got a 29-foot roadway easement, not an easement, a 29-foot strip of land that connects to the highway. That's the best highest use of the property. There is no restrictive or onerous load. We ask the Commissioners to follow the precedents set in the last 35 years, not to arbitrarily and suddenly without notice change the rules. We look toward to being good neighbors. We volunteered to straighten out the mess at lick creek ranch. We have complied with the tnr and lcra regs. There's no burden to the existing infrastructure. Commissioner Daugherty, the last thing I read before I turned out the lights last night is your statement, if you know me very well, you know I don't mind taking a few arrows for what I think is right. We have done everything right. We've dealt with the most reputable real estate folks, we dealt with the best surveyor, we dealt with the staff at great length. We've come in here and laid everything out to you. If you don't approve this, tell us what you will approve.
>> what's your response to the comments that mr. Knuckles gave us a few moments ago?
>> i'll defer to my client on the lake.
>> not on the lake, but the number of subdivisions out there, number that did not comply with the deed restrictions, etcetera.
>> my information came from the tnr staff. I was told that if you throw a pencil at the map of lick creek ranch, you're going to hit a violation. I relied on that. If you look at our maps of the way the lots have been chopped up, they're all up and down the river. There's no way any of those are a mile in each direction. You can't pick and choose which of the deed restrictions you're going to hang your hat on. If it says it has to be one acre and 100 feet, then it can't just be 100 feet. It has to be one acre. And what you're being asked to do is take deed restrictions that were never valid, that are ambiguous to begin with, that defy comprehension, and you've got the graphic there. Look at the actual deed restriction and tell me does that mean 100 feet in every direction, 100 feet in one direction, one acre, three acres or two acres or maybe two hundred feet in every direction. Ambiguity means they failed. And that is a textbook case of ambiguity.
>> what's your response to the county requirement of the lots fronting a public street or a private street that meets county standards?
>> those don't -- what's out there is what's out there. And the question is, will our development, our additional five lots, pose more than a minimal burden? And by no stretch of the imagination will it. Frankly, the buyers aren't going to be from this area. My client is the only one who is going to be living out there, and she already lives in that area.
>> I?m curious as to why you are asking for a variance. Because that would seem to imply you think you're subject to the new rules and regulations that are now the old rules and regulations related to the street situation.
>> the rules are what they are. I?m simply saying that particular rule 82 did hephize -- devise comprehension.
>> no, sir, it doesn't. If you've lived in this community for as long as many of us have and have a body of work in terms of how we interpret this, but you ask for an exception. One of the real frustrations of this job is there's way too much of this job where it says we shall do things. We have no discretion. In fact, we can be thrown into court to be man day mussed to do certain kind of things. That is not the case here. Even you all recognized you need a variance. You're asking for an exception. And it says this Commissioners court may grant the exception or we may not. It is not shall grant the exception. And therefore a lot of us here have a huge body of work about what these regulations mean, why they were enacted, and it is nothing new. And even you all concede with this letter you think you are subject to new regulations -- excuse me, the existing regulations, and you want an exception, and it is discretionary.
>> well, if I may respond, if we end up at the courthouse, the courthouse is not going to have access to this body of work and all the files. They're going to have access to the code and they're going to say does it have a plain meaning.
>> and I think it clearly does.
>> any questions?
>> let me ask a couple of questions. [overlapping speakers]
>> is it ms. Mcclellan? Would you be interested in stepping back from this right now and getting involved in this process that we are trying to work with in western Travis County and work with us to see if there is something that can be worked out later? I think this is going to take us, you know, six to eight months, but this is precisely -- do you know what? You're right, and I said it earlier. The ambiguity in all of this stuff, I think the people of lick creek and the lick creek estates realize, you know, that whatever you have -- whenever you have an organization that you have put together and -- let's face it, it's a very loose -- you're right, you can throw a pencil at it and hit, you know, ambiguities all over the board, which is the reason why I?m not necessarily interested in trying to not give you something because of deed restrictions. Because do you know what? I don't think the deed restrictions were ever looked at to say, okay, let's have these meetings and let's make sure the letter of the law, people moved out there and they say, okay, let's kind of get together and have some controls over some thing. That's what happens in the county. I mean, that's what's happened forever. Now what we have in 2004 is with all of the development coming out -- and I doubt that you would be caught up in any of this had there not been west cypress creek and everything that's happened out there, but do you know what? We can't do anything about that. That's happened, so that's the reason that we're dealing with this whole process and dealing with this sort of thing. I would love to have you as part of this. I mean, I think that you can see that we are going to -- I think you read it right. There's probably some resistance, me being one of them, with giving this variance at this stage because this is precisely what I?m trying to work on. I think that if you lived out there, then you would probably be on that site of it and say, wait a minute, we really want to have some say so in this thing. There is some heartache on what you're wanting. And technically there are things that you need from the court. I mean, a variance -- I mean, you know, I can see that we want to make sure that we get the right kind of road because Commissioner Sonleitner, she's mentioned it. The county kind of gets, you know (indiscernible) a lot of sometimes because that's what happens in the county. State government allows that. And then when we get it handed over to us, a lot of time it's not things that we necessarily want, but we've got to deal with them. And substandard roads and drainage and all these things that have come about because of us being an urban county and people wanting to fwroa out -- and you're right, people -- I?m sure that there are people that want to live on these lots. There are people out there that live out there on lots just like these. But we have a different set of circumstances in 2004. I wish that we didn't, but we do. And, I mean, my resistance to this thing, I?m not going to try to pin on you because you've got deed restrictions that's not right because you're exactly right. I mean, there are mistakes, there are variances all over the board out there. And it is tough to come in and say we want you to deny this because here's our board meeting from last month. I mean, I?m not going to be able to get there with that, but where I am going to get to is that I?m trying to work with people that live out there. I?m trying to work in a different scenario of western Travis County, and unfortunately, mercedes, you have got encaught at a spot where that's what's happened to you. And I would be remiss in saying anything other than that as far as I am concerned. And so I?m not going to be supportive of it. I don't know if -- do we need to here from neighbors or do we need a motion? Judge, I know that you've got an 11:00 o'clock time here.
>> I think we need to hear from at least a couple, three of the neighbors. There's been an invitation for you to join Commissioner Daugherty and others in working through some of these issues, ms. Mcclellan.
>> I would love to. I mean, I understand -- I would love to. Understand that when I first started this, like I said, I have been out there every single weekend looking at this property and enjoying everything about it. I've consulted with the surveyors, consulted with ned led better, which is a pretty good well fwie out there, consulted with the septic name. You name it, I have consulted with every person I could possibly think of to divide this property. It's a huge piece of property and it can be done. It can be done where everybody -- every homeowner in that plat is happy with their views and so forth. And we can put septic in there, we can put well in there for reasonable costs. I made sure of that. These are friends that I?m selling to, they're notious people that -- I want to make sure that everybody is happy, so i've done my homework. I've done what i've been told to do.
>> the understated part of that invitation was to hold off to subdivide or resubdivide. I think mr. Knuckles is still trying to find out which one it is.
>> i'll be glad to explain if anybody wants to hear my explanation.
>> what's your position on that?
>> I can't give you my position at this time. It's not that I -- what's holding off me?
>> holding off to me --
>> it would be not in black's law dictionary, but in webster's.
>> I don't think you can read this -- mercedes, if you don't mind, I?m better with first names. I mean, I?m not trying to cause you any undue harm. I mean, there is a process that we are going to start. And I think that if you work with the folks out here. And maybe there has to be some alterations. And I?m sure that you've done lots of survey work and you've done -- you're probably going, my gosh, what do I have to do if i've got to go through this process? And I certainly don't want this thing to bally tijious -- litiguous. Let's face it. You live out there in the area, although you may live across the river, but let's see if we can come together with something and work with something at a time. And then after all is said and done, perhaps that is still where we're going to be. But I would rather you not force me to, say, make the motion of denying this variance, but I think that you're hearing in my voice that if that's what you're going to ask me to do, that's what I?m going to do. And I know that will trigger all sorts of other things and I would rather not get there.
>> I would rather not get there either. But what would be the next step then?
>> well, you have enough acreage here to be able to meet the deed restrictions and county standards, whether you like them or not. My recommendation would be that in light of you withdrawing the application, meet with some of the residents out there, come up with another proposal that if there's not a compromise, then at least it documents a better effort to meet deed restrictions that in our place -- in our position are in place and county standards that we try to interpret the same every time.
>> judge, we can meet the county standards. We're not going to concede there are any deed restrictions in effect out there.
>> you do not meet the county standards right now related to drainage and streets. With your very words and actions, you are clearly laying out here, you are in effect creating a brand new subdivision. I'd love to play lawyer even though I?m not one, on tv. We have an original tract of land here, the original plat. Large chunks of land were sold to individual people. By your very actions you're not subdividing this amongst family members, you are entering into business relationships with people you are not related to. You are in effect having a brand new subdivision that is being created here. You need to go by the new rules. The new rules are the old rules that have been here for five years or more related to what kind of standards you need to meet. So take a look at our standards. You know I have not talked about deed restrictions. I?m not getting caught up in that. I think that's someplace I?m not going. I?m simply saying I?m lapping myself in the flag that is called the existing Travis County standards, not some mythical thing that may be invented, but what has been on the books that we have required others to meet, period, no variances.
>> madam Commissioner, are you calling my client a liar that these are not friends of hers.
>> they are not blood relatives, therefore you are in effect entering into business relationships. You are creating a new subdivision. Period.
>> I believe two of them are blood relatives, Commissioner.
>> I don't know if that matters to me.
>> [overlapping speakers]
>> I think where we are, though --
>> it's a business relationship.
>> if we are required to take formal action as a Commissioners court, I don't see three votes of approval. But you have a right to get that. And what I was trying to do is trying to figure out a way, rather than waste a lot of money on legal fees and additional time, trying to figure out a way to come up with a proposal that meets what we think are the applicable standards.
>> judge, that's what we've asked for. I asked in my presentation. We've done everything the way we were told to.
>> it's got a variance in it.
>> we met with the staff, we met with lcra, we hired a surveyor. We dealt with real estate professionals out there. We've done everything we were told to do.
>> bring it back without a variance.
>> only the Commissioners court can grant a variance. Clearly the lot that has a 29 feet fronting the road, the 50 feet, those do not meet.
>> and am I to understand that the prior precedent of the Commissioners court action is of no value?
>> we may grant a variance on a case-by-case basis, but I think we have granted them sparingly over the last few years. Now, the other thing is it's one thing to come and ask for a variance and there's no opposition. It's another thing if you come and ask for a variance and it is clear that other residents who may be adversely affected oppose it. There's a whole lot of stuff that goes on in the county that we never know about. You can argue later on that we didn't intervene, so we blessed it.
>> judge, you're putting us in a position of running a popularity contest out there.
>> no, we're in a position of getting our decision today, which based on my reading of the leaves, is negative. Or back it up and taking the opportunity to maybe try to compromise with some of the neighbors out there.
>> okay. I have two questions. One, is the terrain at all an issue? Have other people walked in entire property? Do they know what it looked like? Have they seen every single part of this property? Inch by inch? Because it's a big -- it's a big deal. I've looked over this whole thing. It not like I just whim sickly drew some lines. And second, I?m all for compromise. There's no need to get into a litiguous situation. Nobody wants that, but who am I going to deal with? Am I going to deal with somebody that is not open to compromise? Am I going to deal with somebody that comes to my office and threatens me? What is it? How is that going to work?
>> I?m willing to give that a try. I?m willing to go and be part of a meeting with you and the neighbors. And do you know what? If I think that there's no way around it or that they're not going to budge, well, then, you need to know that and I need to know that. But i'd like for us to have that opportunity first because -- I really don't want to just -- I don't want to make the motion to deny right now unless we have -- unless you're just going to force me to do that. Let's go and see what we can -- what we can do.
>> will three months be enough time to see if we can reason together?
>> well, I mean, I don't -- let me tell you, I said it at the beginning. I think that we are in the process of a six to an eight-month deal here that -- and it's not just lick creek. I mean, it's all parts of western Travis County. And mercedes, that may not be a time factor that you can deal with, but why don't we at least start with pulling back on this thing, knowing that you're not going to get the variance today and let's see. What do we have to lose?
>> I?m willing to start there as long as we can come to some conclusion today as to how that's going to work. In other words, I have no problem with compromising, but if I?m dealing with people that have already made up their mind and aren't willing to go out there and walk that land and look at it and really see what I?m trying to do instead of just looking at lines and so forth and just have a wall, I can't talk to a wall.
>> and I can't give you that information today.
>> you're asking me -- you're saying that I need to deal with others to compromise with them. If they're not willing to compromise with me, then there's no way that that can happen.
>> and I don't know that. I don't know that. I mean, I think -- [ inaudible ] absolutely. Sure you will.
>> in terms of what we're trying to tell you, it is about meeting the current standards of Travis County related to subdivisions. Bring a plat back with no variances, and I will take a completely different look at this because I will be forced to whether I like it or not. If it meets the standards, I have no choice but to approve the plat, but you bring something here with an inclusive variance and I absolutely can say I can reject it because it does not meet standards. Period.
>> why don't we take 30 days.
>> I was going to suggest that, your honor.
>> 30 days and we figure out whether you can make changes that in your view working with Commissioner Daugherty, you meet county standards and deed restrictions. And we'll also get two or three people in the neighborhood to join in and work on this too. And if you come back and it's been worked out, fine. If it hasn't been worked out, you will get a formal decision from us and you will know how to proceed. We're looking at one month. In order to do that, though --
>> I will get your waiver in this afternoon, judge. I have that form in already.
>> that's where we are. Y'all have heard the discussion, right? And what I?m suggesting is what can be implemented that will comply with the standards in question and get us over the objections. And if that is not possible a month from now, we look at that, look at all the circumstances, make our determination ourselves and act on it.
>> let us all go come and reason together.
>> now let's hear from two or three residents and hear how that sound.
>> and i've got a legal question for tom as well. Tom, related to the elgin standards, does this Commissioners court have to reject this plat today unless we have it on the record that the developer is formally withdrawing this for consideration? It has to be one or the other because otherwise there will be an automatic approval of things if they do not formally withdraw.
>> I was going to raise that point, but he basically preempted me by providing an assurance that we would get a written extension in writing today.
>> I don't know if i'll do it today. It will be first thing tomorrow and back dated today. Will that work?
>> well, if you have it -- if the Commissioners court adjourns -- I can't let the Commissioners court adjourn today without having that in writing.
>> we won't adjourn -- our last interview this afternoon is at 5:30. Tom usually goes goes home at 459.
>> I?m sure somebody here has that form.
>> we must have it or else we have to take action.
>> no, we're not going to play games on that.
>> okay. Yes?
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> we're still in session and I would be either moving or seconding a motion to reject this plat.
>> okay.
>> somebody will come to dallas, get my bar card and tear it up in little bitty pieces.
>> my name is mary francis. I probably -- my neighbors probably wish I would shut up because it looks like this is going my way, but I?m just busting to say something. They've got three parcells out in this development a stone's throw from this lady's lot in the last 13 months. I bought those in good conscience with intent. The third parcel I bought in fact was in order to comply with the restrictions, the deed restrictions as they have to do with things that my family wanted to do on the land. We bought enough land to make sure that we could comply with what all of our neighbors had agreed was an acceptable use of this land. So I would hope that the court would take into account not only the profit motive. We are all hopefully not expected to believe that there is no profit motive in this plan surely, but also a fairness and a respect for your neighbors and the life-style that they've elected as out there. As far as deed restrictions, when I bought my property, I didn't employ a legal firm to show me how to get out of that or to interpret whether or not they were accurate. There is a very prominent, permanently posted sign on the entrance to this subdivision that says there are deed restrictions in effect. When you look at a preliminary title report, those deed restrictions are of record. When you further examine those, they are very -- I have no idea of the legality of all this, but you certainly have a sense of the property owners out there and how they intend to use that land and what their standard of living is expected to be. And for this gentleman to insinuate that this land abuts to -- I think he referred to a highway. It isn't even a road, it's a trail. And I don't care how piewfl that property is, that's not my concern. My concern is the three parcells I own. My family living on two of those, and the impact that this beautiful parcel being split into five or six, I believe is more accurate, will have on the road, the people who are working together as neighbors to try to maintain that road, these people who are coming as a second home, do we have any -- okay. So maybe they're not going to use it that often. Is there any restriction that they won't in turn sell it somewhere down the road to someone who is going to use it more often? Do we think that the people that are using it as a second homecoming twice a year are going to come up there and shovel gravel on that trail? I don't think so. I guess my point that I?m trying to make is that we would hope not only the dotted line of the legality, but also the fairness of everybody exernd out there. That's all I have to say.
>> my name is dominic. I live this lick creek subdivision. I'll try not to take up too much of your time especially since I need to get my car moved or I?m going to get a ticket. I want to address a couple of points that mr. Cattrell made and reference something that Commissioner Daugherty mentioned, and that records the ambiguity. I know to some Commissioners that's not a concern. I personally am not a lawyer, but I do not have a lot of trouble reading these deed restrictions and understanding them. Yet perhaps there are some ambiguities in it. There are a lot of ambiguities and that's why we have a supreme court. A couple of points that he made that I think deserve attention. One is he repeatedly this week and last week referred to the description of a restriction of 100 feet in any direction and whether or not that means in any and all directions or just one direction. I can't imagine how you could possibly have two restrictions, one that says you have to have one acre, and one that says you have to have one wheat in -- 100 feet in any direction and not have a line that is in 100 feet in any direction, meaning one direction. It has to apply to 100 feet in any and all directions, just the mathmatics makes the statement 100 feet in any direction, meaning one direction, nonsensical. Secretaryly, -- secondly, he made references to one acre, two acres, three acres in the deed restrictions. In fact, there are more than one subdivisions in this area. Some -- I have property in one that requires a minimum of three acres. I live in another that has a requirement of one acre. The deed restrictions are pretty clear about that. The implication that the deed restrictions are not -- don't exist, that they're not enforceable, that we do not try to enforce them, that they're so filled with ambiguities that is it possible to understand them or to follow them, and that you can throw a dart and hit a violation in lick creek subdivision. I just believe those are untrue and I would hope that the court would not allow those sorts of ideas to permeate. I thank you for your time.
>> thank you.
>> good morning. My name is sandra nash and I?m a professional land planner with over 24 years' experience in land planning, laying out stwitions and site plans and 20 years of that experience is here in central Texas. And I appreciate the comments that joe gieselman made, his insight and the insight ta the Commissioners howrt had regarding that this is the fringe of the suburban growth. And I would like to just very briefly hit on the points that we identified before the public hearing began. My number one concern, and I do live on out back trail. I have children. My number one concern is for the health, safety and welfare of the people that currently live out there as well as the safety of the new people that will be receding in this new -- residing in this new subdivision. And I think that some plans could be made to the plat, and I just -- one of my comments has to do with the roadways out there and the burden on the infrastructure. And there's really no infrastructure out there. It's a trail. It has two road tracks. There's grass growing in the middle. There's no drainage, there's no culvert. And the center line curb -- I?m not an engineer or a planner, but I can put a scale to a map. And the center line is approximately 75-foot radius. Whereas it would be -- it has 2.3 acres. So this curve could be flattened out. So there's things like that that could be done to this plat that I think give more thought to the safety and welfare and bringing it to current standards. A 75-foot center line radius is very tight when you only have at maximum 10 feet of gravel, you have no sidewalks, you have no trails. We have kids out there walking their dogs, riding their bikes. We have people in the subdivision that are riding their horses out there. There's not room for two cars to pass. So my concern does have to do with the road and some of the geometrics of the road and I think that they could be worked on. My other concern is that the park has a drive way that goes twice on lot 10-a and I don't see easements for that portion of the driveway. I don't think it's fair that driveway comes down the hill to force the association -- I don't think it's fair to force any association to have to rebuild a driveway. I see two parts of their driveway that actually is existing driveway is actually what's on proposed lot 10-a, not encumbered by easements, which may enforce if the owners of 10-a fenced their property line, they would fence off the driveway to the park. So I?m concerned about some easements to the park. And I?m sure these are all things that we could work out in a smaller group. My final comment, I guess, is to the deed restrictions. And I?m not going to argue the deed restrictions, but I am going to take exception to if you throw a pencil at lick creek you will find a deed restriction. Not my lot, not the lot I live on, not the lot i' own. You won't find the deed restrictions. And I understand when I bought that the derestrictions applied. This sign says right at the intersection, this sign says deed restrictions apply to all people on all property. We certainly bought ours knowing that we would be subject to those deed restrictions as well. I'd be happy to sit on a small group of people and lend my expertise and commit to not prejudge the project and see if we can come up with something that does meet the code.
>> you will have some time within the next 30 days?
>> i'll have some time -- yes.
>> my name is sib bill autry. I want to rebut what he said. The property I own has no property lines that do not add up to a total of 100 feet. I am not in violation, never was, never will be. Nobody in my entire portion of the subdivision has any violation that I am aware of. Whether there may be some that cannot be defended in lick creek ranch subdivision phase 1 I?m not sure, but these deed restrictions cover 2,094 acres and to pretend that they can find only to lick creek phase 1 is a miss interpretation. I don't want to argue the deed restriction situation because it's not really jermaine just as Commissioner Sonleitner says, but since it has been brought up and beat to a bull 'by the neighboring attorney here, I do think we ought to say that we have defended in court these violations. The first time was in 1974. The last time was in 1999. We have even taken cases to the appellate court. And our deed restrictions are enforceable as one party to the other party. Your implication that somehow lick creek ranch puts themself forth as having an hoa with enforceable powers is ridiculous. Any time they have served as a plaintiff it is because they are a property owner and property owners may enforce as against other property owners. That's all I care to say about the deed restrictions. What I would say in response to what Commissioner son Sonleitner has sandy what some others have said, I can't see any value to having a conference concerning whether or not these lots can be made in such a way that they don't have to have a variance. Unless the county is going to come in and pave all three roads, that there will always be the deed need for a vary dwrans. And these roads are a very delicate infrastructure. They are maintained by the neighbors themselves. There are certain men who do the bulk of the work. They give up their own time, their own sweat labor, sometimes their own money to keep these roads passable. To add another 50, 60 cars a day, which is an engineering standard per lot, to these trails is an absolute outrage. And to say that it's not a burden is just not living in reality. And so saying it in advance, I will always be here to protest any variance until the county is ready to pave these roads. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> my name is john nash and I live on out back trail. And, well, essentially I?m the guy who has taken care of out back trail. You know, in the six months I haven't been there -- in the six months i've been there i've been the one who has been going out with my own shovel, moving the piles of gravel that have washed out of the road and putting them back in the holes so that the road is passable. These lots represent a 100% increase in the amount of traffic. I?m not going to bible to maintain those roads. They will become impassable in a matter of months. And that's it for me. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> morning. My name is nikki mckenzie. I live at 3814 deer trail. The folks on these lots will drive in month of my house, I?m a straight shot to their lots or on out back trail. I have a small child, I have ponies. We have wheeled vehicles that we drive on the roads. When we purchased the property we thought this is great. It's 10-foot wide gravel roads with lots of potholes. We don't be dodging cars. I have seven acres. It's also been suggested that these are small lots. I?m not an expert. I?m not a realtor. I?m mom. I?m a single mom. When we maintain the roads, I?m the guy out there with the shovel. It's not just the men in our community, it's all of we neighbors getting together with shovels, we pool our money, we buy six yards, 12 yards, 100 yards, I don't know about that either. I help shovel. We take care of these roads ourselves. It's important to note also that the visibility on the roads, our mail lady and her truck have had a head on collision with another resident on our roads in front of my house. These are not safe roads. They are not county standard roads. I also am outraged to sit here and listen to you folks working to make a compromise. I purchased my property with a great deal of struggle personally so that my children can live in a rural setting, and as I look around the neighborhood, my neighbors own large tracts of land, in general, like mine. Those that abut the paved roads from a layperson's perspective look to be smaller lots. Those on the trail look to be larger lots, not 50 cars. 50 more cars in front of my house is going to be an extreme safety, dirt, all those kinds of burdens to a person who lives a country life-style. To suggest that it's not is an outrage. And it's an outrage to suggest that we can come together and compromise. All that we are asking is that the county make a decision based on county standards. But until those roads are brought up to county standards, I don't see how we can compromise so that mercedes can turn a profit that she wants to turn on those lots. And I appreciate. Her lot is beautiful. So is mine. I also wanted to read this letter that is from the president of the lick creek grant association. They couldn't be here today and they asked me to read the letter. Unfortunately my husband and I cannot attend this very important meeting concerning the redeciding of lot 10, lick creek ranch subdivision. In lieu of our attendance we we would like to have submitted to court this letter regarding our opinion in this matter. Also included is a copy of the letter submitted at the last meeting by leonard hubert, treasurer of lick creek ranch association. The main concern is the preservation of deed restrictions currently on file with the Travis County and lick creek ranch association incorporated. The plans submitted for lot 10 does not meet the restrictions and there's no reason that this should be approved. If the court decides to approve the resubdivision, the entire subdivision will be open for other violations of deed restrictions. Potential property owners will have no reason to adhere to other restrictions and they will have proof that the recentral Texases are enforceable. Mobile homes will be erected, smaller acreage will become less. Small one tract -- less than one tract lands. Tracts on 71 will be sold for commercial activity and a general collapse of the quality we now enjoy will be dead. If the owners of lot 10 wish to subdivide, I submit that they should follow the current deed restrictions and have a qualified professional resubmit plans that are within our deed restrictions. There are many issues intertwined within the subdivision that many property owners in lick creek and pedernales subdivisions are concerned about. Maintaining property values and environmental and water quality issues. Still we must begin by first preserving our deed restrictions. As property owners within lick creek subdivision and within close proximity of the proposed plat redivision, we plead with the court to uphold our deed restrictions and vote against this proposal. And it's signed kate alexander and richard (indiscernible), president of the lick creek homeowners association.
>> nikki, let me ask you a question. If the road was a county accepted road, would that make any difference to you?
>> on a personal level I would hope to not see 50 more cars in front of my house with my kids and my ponies, but I would not be here arguing against rules that are in effect. When I made my investment as an uneducated in the world of legal language woman, I read all the restrictions that are filed and court stamped from 1972 back to 1968, and I took the time, as I hear mercedes did, to walk my property and to really investigate the way that the land is being used. And I made what I thought was an intelligent decision for my family. But if the county comes in and pays these roads and widens them or whatever has to be done, then I don't feel like I have a leg to stand on. But that's not how I bought my property. I bought my property on a crummy road and i've destroyed my car so that my kids could ride their ponies without getting run down.
>> nikki, what do you say to a person that owns property?
>> I own seven acres and --
>> I you have seven acres. Did you go out there thinking that there was nobody that owned property around you and what rights do they have -- [overlapping speakers] I mean, the problem is everybody wants to live in their haven. And that would be great if nobody else owned property.
>> no, that was not my intent. My intent was to study the deed restrictions and to look around at the properties that surrounded me, and it's my interpretation that they were all foreseeable, non-surveyed opinion, could not be much smaller than two acres apiece. And so can I live with two acre neighbors with a 100 or two hundred foot road frontage? Yeah, I can live with that. I?m not saying here's my rule. I don't have to own all the land in Texas, I just have to live in a place with the restrictions that I can adhere to and I expect my neighbors to adhere to. That's all I?m trying to do.
>> what's the smallest lot out there?
>> me? 2.2.
>> she doesn't front a county maintained road, and that was part of my decision. I can look out there and see that there's a paved pedernales canyon road that people drive real fast on. I don't live on that road. I didn't buy property on that road. The reason I didn't, because to resubdivide the lots they have to be on a county maintained road. That road wasn't county maintained. It may not be. I don't know. But my road does not look maintained and I can tell you it's not county maintained because I can show you the blisters from shovelling the gravel.
>> Travis County no longer has a substandard road program. We don't do it any more. We require subdivisions from rob roy to Austin colony to figure out, make the improvements and then come to Travis County for the acceptance of those roads. But when we did have a substandard road program, it was a cooperative venture with those neighbors, and the neighbors had to completely meet all the standards and completely donate all the right-of-way. We have none of the above here.
>> exactly. And I count on that.
>> you even have to work together and bring them up to county standards or we don't have a substandard road program any more. Even if we did, the neighbors would all have to band together to figure out how to meet our standards, including the complete donation of right-of-way.
>> I?m cindy phillips. I own property on lick creek and also on the pedernales canyon in that subdivision. My husband is an engineer and he would like to have been here today, but had to work, so he's concerned about the roads. I?m concerned about them too. The traffic is really revving up constantly up there. Two years ago my best friend was killed on a crash at the intersection of pedernales con canyon and 71. Several people have died there. I?m surprised more people haven't died actually on pedernales canyon trail teenagers have turned over their suv's and just -- I saw a car burn up there one time. It's bad. The road that we're talking about is definitely not a road, it is a trail. It's just a little dirt, gravel road. My husband and I moved out to this area because it looked like the garden of eden to us. We fell in love with it and we had a (indiscernible) shop at the time, which is not a good way to get rich, and we're not, but we made some sacrifices.
>> don't give up yet.
>> I?m still trying. Maybe i'll be a famous potter some day. But we made some sacrifices to get these properties. We bought a piece on lick creek because it really is the garden of eden. It's the swimming hole that everybody goes to. It's a collapsed cave and it's eco logically delicate. And we've been officers of our park association for about 20 years, mostly because we couldn't get anybody else to do it after we got the officers. So we have been aware of the deed restrictions, we get called about the deed restrictions, we enforce them. We're not mean bulldogs. We want people to live out here in peace. So sometimes we negotiate with people. Sometimes we insist that they follow the deed restrictions. And my advice to anybody else who wants to move out here is follow the deed restrictions. They're in place for a reason. They're not unreasonable ones. And also I wanted to address a little bit the lcra approval of this lot. I don't see how that five lots can meet lcra standards for well and septic tank. I just -- I don't understand it. Maybe they do, but if they do, as he was saying, it's time to have a new paradigm for development out here. Water is our most precious resource, and it's being fought over now, and everybody needs water. Everybody needs access to water and needs to be free and equal distribution. It shouldn't be harming the person who drills 14 wells up the hill from you. Wars are being fought over water. So this is something -- you know, I appreciate the Commissioners willingness to address this issue and their forward lookingness. And that's all I want to say. Thank you very much.
>> we appreciate your input. Thank all of you. My idea is that we will take 30 days, try to get a small committee of residents and the applicant together with Commissioner Daugherty. We would try to figure out ways to meet the deed restrictions. We would assume they would be legal and we would try to meet them basically. And whatever flexibility we have in terms of the road access, we have a presentation to the court on that also. Obviously what I?m hoping for is that we can meet some sort of proposal that is satisfactory to all involved. We are talking about 13 acres here divided into bits. And if the smaller one is 2-plus acres, it's a good size. And if nothing good comes of it, then at least we've given it the old try.
>> i've arbitrarily written in 45 days. That will give us time after 30 days to get it on the agenda. Would that be okay?
>> my guess is that it would require three or four. If your not plaquing progress, I wouldn't wait around. With Commissioner Daugherty's involvement, he may be able to agree on that and keep us posted.
>> now that we no longer have toll roads on our consideration -- that will move this right into the front. [overlapping speakers]
>> if it helps, we'll build a toll road out here. Thank you for your attention.
>> judge, do we need a motion? If it is, i'll second it.
>> I think if there's no objection, we'll proceed in that direction. We need to get --
>> we have to have that extension. Very good.
>> we're signing it here.
>> do you both own -- do both owners need to sign it?
>> I can sign for him.
>> sign the subdivision application, we need that person on it at least, tom.
>> i'll take dan's representation to this Commissioners court with his bar card at stake, he can sign for mr. Martinez.
>> that's on the record.
>> and bob Moore from my office is sitting on the back row and he'll walk out the door with you all, and whoever we're going to have from y'all's group, and we'll set up the first meeting.
>> thank you again, Commissioners.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
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