Travis County Commissioners Court
July 6, 2004
Item 1
Number one is a public hearing to discuss requests regarding a plat for recording in precinct 3, resubdivision of lots one and two, gomillion's subdivision, revised plat 3 lots, 4.3318 acres, stone bridge road, no fiscal required, sewage service to be provided by on-site wastewater facility, city of Austin e.t.j.
>> move the public hearing be opened.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes unanimously.
>> good morning. Carol joseph, tnr. The owner of lots one and two wish to resubdivide and make it three lots instead of two. We've heard one neighbor down the street that has requested that it not be heard or approved because they felt that their property values would be devalued based on this resubdivision. We have no issues with the resubdivision. It meets all rules and regulations.
>> would anyone like to give testimony during this public hearing? If so, please come forward. Yes, sir, if you would have a seat there and give us your full name, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> thank you. My name is john mcentire. I知 a property owner adjacent to the gomillion's property, 3627 stone bridge road, lot number 3. And I have three principal concerns with respect to the gomillion's property and request. We were not aware -- made aware of the first subdivision into two lots. We were never notified. So we would have been before your commission at that time as an adjacent property owner. The current subdivision, lot 2, into two additional lots, would put a small lot for the area, a one acre lot, next to my property, and another family, the anderson's right next door to it. So I have three principal concerns, one of which is a well. My well is about 20 feet from the property of this proposed subdivision of one acre. Where he would locate his well would be in very close proximity to that. My well in the last nine months has begun to have increased sediment flow. In fact, we have been without water three times because of sediment clogging up our filter systems and we're having to replace those now every 30 to 45 days. So that's a very big concern for me and my family. The previous owner of the lot had lived there for a number of years. I can't recall his name. I know when I was looking at purchasing the property, his well had been replaced because of sediment issues in the time he had owned his property, so I am concerned about that so that if the gomillion's now sell the front part of their current estate, there will be two lots and two additional wells that would be near mine and I知 just concerned about that. We have talked to the Barton Creek and edward's aquifer district. They have not given us any feedback yet on why or what the cause of the sediment is that's coming into the well. Secondly is more of a development process. When the gomillion's bought the property, obviously it does have a deed restriction that they negotiated with the property owners. It's a beautiful lot. That road on stonebridge road is a very heavily wooded lot. The gomillions bought the property and clear-cut it. And I know when john cook had divided the lots that we have, main is 1.8 acres. There was a tree survey and he was very conscious about the trees. And the gomillions, with all due respect, as with property owners, they clear-cut it. And now they're coming back and subdividing it and developing it. So my concern -- there's a 20-acre lot across from us. I would hate for there to be a precedent set in Travis County or for the city for that matter where someone could come in, clear-cut and then develop without respect to the trees survey as well as any bird letter. So that's certainly a concern in terms of how someone develops, and that also affects property value. And then secondarily, this being a smaller lot in this area, it would be one of I think the smallest lots on this whole road that this -- the minimum size for septic. So aside from personal tastes and with all due respect to the gomillion's wishes, I believe that the manner in which it was developed and where we are now, it will have a detrimental effect on our property values, and that woulding my principal concern and my request for you all is obviously if there's a restriction it may not be you all's -- a deed restriction, it may not be your purview, but I would ask you to give serious consideration to the adjacent landowners. And I think -- i've spoken to the andersons, who couldn't be here, as well, who are also adjacent.
>> mr. Mcentire, have you talked to the gomillions?
>> no, sir. I have spoken with their -- not about this particular -- we're neighbors, so we speak. We haven't spoken about this in particular. I did speak with his consultant on the issue and expressed my concerns. He echoed the concerns. He wasn't aware at that time that they had clear-cut it, but if you do a flyover, it's the only five-acre place without any trees in that area.
>> so would you intend to talk to them and ask them if there's -- do you have a decent relationship with them?
>> yes. Absolutely. We don't get to see oach other that often. It's a bit of a trek to go around the fence, but we have mutual friends and such, so absolutely. I知 here mainly as a property owner and hoping that the gomillion's wishes to subdivide don't set a bad precedent there for the neighborhood and the rest of the area.
>> it sounds like your request is not unreasonable to me of going to him and saying, if you're going to make a one acre lot, which obviously is smaller than anything down through there, it would be interesting to me to find out, you know, what the person would think about that because I guess, carol, we really don't get to weigh in necessarily on the deed restrictions -- or we could.
>> we could could if it's negatively as like a couple of weeks ago. But as far as I know, we don't know any of the deed restrictions that negatively affect the neighborhood.
>> Commissioner I would say in talking with the gomillion's consultants, I believe that this property has more value, personally -- and this is personal preference -- as a whole than it does selling a one acre lot. And certainly we have a significant investment in our home and our property, and we certainly pay on the tax rolls. The size lot, the size home and the pricing that the consultant have told me about would not be on parity in terms of the square foot price of my home. And I believe that -- so that's going to have a detrimental effect, not to mention that when you drive down this road, this little one acre, no treed lot right up against this tract, you can't see -- aside from the anderson's home, you can see a little bit of the back of their home, but our five and a half acre area is so heavily wooded that you can't hardly see the homes back there. Personal preference.
>> I have a couple of questions. What specifically are you saying are the deed restrictions that have been violated? Do you have a minimum lot size?
>> I believe the deed restrictions that the gomillion's have on their property when they bought is that it would not be subdivided.
>> we just got a whole bunch of people looking like they just went through whiplash in terms of is there a plat note, somebody? Because that would be something extraordinarily serious as opposed to just somebody thinking that.
>> good morning. Lee huffman, tnr. I知 not aware of any deed restrictions that limit the lot size on these properties. The front part is a barbecue establishment. I believe that there were restrictions on that property when it was part of a larger -- I want to say a 1500-acre tract or a 150-acre tract, but I知 not aware of any restrictions on these two lots.
>> what do you mean the front are the part is a barbecue?
>> rudy's barbecue?
>> this land that the gomillion's bought was from a gentleman that owned this land. I know that the gomillion's apparently subdivided, told off an easement to the gomillion's. I知 not sure if that was part of the original part or not.
>> yes. The original gomillion subdivision, which came in previously, was for three lots. The back two lots were the residential properties, the front lot was the barbecue place. And this resubdivision is just for the back two residential lots.
>> is there not a deed restriction on this?
>> I知 not aware that there is.
>> do you have a plat or the notes on that?
>> on the original plat?
>> or on the plat that the gomillion's bought.
>> I have a copy of the original gomillion subdivision, yes.
>> and there are no restrictions on that?
>> there was on the front lot, not on these two residential properties.
>> I was informed that there was, so I don't have that document with me.
>> again, I知 not saying that there isn't, I知 simply saying that from the information that's available to us there were no restrictions.
>> it's already gone through the city of Austin, it's gone through city of Austin. The city of Austin is responsible for everything related to the environmental, so any questions or concerns you've got related to trees, etcetera, is not even what we look at.
>> I appreciate that. The city said that they basically -- and the consultant to the gomillion's apologized in part because he wasn't aware of that. The city basically said he followed the development rules that they were aware of. And so if someone came in and bought a property across the street, clear-cut it, waited a couple of years and then followed the city rules, they're okay with that.
>> what was your source, the source of the deed restriction to county staff, we'll delay action on this one week. Why don't we delay action one week, give you a chance to speak with the applicant and also give us the site for the deed restriction, let us check into that and make sure we're not violating that. As far as I know, we never considered property value in making our determination, right?
>> correct.
>> that is not one of our criteria, but if there's a deed restriction that comes in to play, then I think we're duly bound to comply with it. So that's a pretty important development.
>> okay. I'll find that out.
>> and it may well be that what we have is not all of the deed restrictions, so if you have others that we can review between now and next Tuesday, that will help.
>> okay.
>> so what we'll do is let's complete the public hearing, if there's somebody else, and then delay action. This was actually item number 20. And there is at least one more person. Does someone else wish to give testimony during this public hearing? Please come forward. This is item number one. You're on one? Okay.
>> I have a quick question. One acre is sufficient in terms of on-site sewage?
>> yes, ma'am. It's .75 acres is required.
>> yes, sir. If you could give us your name.
>> my name is monty jan son and I just want to talk about in support of the resubdivision. I知 the person who is actually wanting to buy that one acre lot. And contrary to what mr. Mcentire said, there must be about 30 to 40 nice oak trees on the property. There are no cedar trees on there. I don't know about any clear-cutting, but that lot has been vacant like it is for more than five years now. So as i've been watching this lot and this area, there hasn't been any activity on it. The gomillions have started this process probably four to five months ago, and we thought it would be a pretty simple deal because they had followed all the deed restrictions or there weren't any that were preventing them from doing what they wanted to do. And as we looked at this and as he and I negotiated this deal, we followed everything, went through the e.t.j., We had the approval of the city and we just expected this to be just the basic approval of the county. Now, you can set it back another week, you can set it back another month. I think it will go through. I hate the idea of losing construction time and losing time to be building a house, and so our consultant did talk with mr. Mcentire, and at that time when they did talk, there were no issues, and so quite frankly, I知 surprised -- I was surprised to see mr. Mcentire here today because our understanding was that everything had been resolved and taken care of. And so by the fact that we were kind of blindsided here this morning, I知 very disappointed and even more so if we delay it another week. So if you have any questions, i'd be happy to answer them, otherwise I do hope we go forward.
>> sir, are you aware of any deed restrictions on this property?
>> there are no deed restrictions on this property.
>> well, if there are no deed restrictions on this property, that simplifies it for us, but we will take one week. That will give us an opportunity just to double-check. And if in fact there are no deed restrictions, it seems to me to be pretty straightforward. What we do is apply county criteria, but I never knew what would happen today myself when I looked at the backup, it looked fairly straightforward. But the issue of a possible deed restriction that comes into play tells me that we ought to be at least cautious and to double-check that and to take one week to do it.
>> thank you.
>> anybody else to give comments during this public hearing? Yes, sir, please come forward. This is item number one.
>> move it be closed. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. The action part of this item, number 20, will be on the court's agenda next week. It will not be posted for public hearing next week, but simply action. And that will be item number 20.
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 9:44 AM