Travis County Commissioners Court
September 13, 2005
Item 15
Now, we were told -- I致e been advised there's an agreement on 15, heats call it -- let's call it up. 15 to take appropriate action on the following. A. The filing of an instrument to vacate a part of the cedar street right of way between lots 104 and 105 located in the hughes park lake subdivision #'1 in precinct three. B. The filing of an instrument to vacate half of the cedar street right of way fronting only lot 105 located in the hughes park lake subdivision #'1 in precinct three. Last time we strongly encouraged the parties to huddle outside of the Commissioners court and try to reach a compromise. And this is an opportunity for a report back.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners. Ana bolin Travis County t.n.r. We did meet out at -- at west side service center and we worked towards an agreement. I thought we were there. I think that -- that we had a good meeting. Both parties were there. I -- neighbors up and down the street were there. We didn't -- we rehashed a lot of old history, we set ground rules in advance to try to prevent some of that but to look towards new solutions. We did, you know, find out there were some other things we needed to work with our traffic engineering department on. On -- with regards to parking and the barricade signs, but to me, you know, that's related but not what -- what this motion is about. So -- but at the end of the day, I don't think we have an agreement.
>> so as of this -- so as of this morning, because yesterday afternoon we had an agreement.
>> well, no. We don't -- I was hopeful that we would, but until both parties signed we really, you know, we don't have an agreement. So ...
>> what was the compromise that you worked on?
>> we were working towards having mr. Johnson was working towards deeding three feet, please jump in both parties are here today. Deeding three feet to ms. Allen. I think the question today is was the three feet going to run the whole entire lengths of the property. Between the two lots. I think that's where it is right now. So ...
>> will another week be helpful for people to just keep at it?
>> I doubt it. I really don't think so.
>> I知 not in favor of taking this another week. This is ridiculous. We can move this thing along, I mean, I think that there have been reasonable attempts made to solve this issue, I guess that I知 willing to listen for another five or 10 minutes, but I will tell you that, I mean, I知 up to here with it. I mean, I think that there's something that we need to move on. I think that we need to get off of this, if somebody has got something pertinent to tell me, then you know they had better get to the microphone and tell me, because I知 ready to make the motion on this.
>> all right. Now --
>> can I ask a question?
>> let me play county judge, first. There are three or four points of view. We will give each point of view three minutes, we have to use a timer. Otherwise, we will have to call this item back up when we reach it. And that will be later today. Maybe this afternoon. Three minutes now? Is that right? Who wants to be first?
>> I have a technical question.
>> go ahead and ask it.
>> technical question just to understand. Are either of the a or b technically possible in terms of if we said it's only half, which basically deals with the one person, is there a technical solution that will work with half the road being vacated?
>> yes.
>> and there's also a solution that is technically possible with the full road but that would -- I think this is -- necessitate more of an agreement of the other person. But halfway will get us there.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> that's helpful just as perspective going in. Thank you.
>> three minutes right here.
>> my name is jay johnson. I have petitioned the court to vacate property 105 and 104 or just solely 105. We appeased the court to have a mediation session earlier this week, where I extended the olive branch and volunteered a 3-foot property to extend to the neighbor to allow her access in and around her deck. That was solidified on a post meeting inspection at the site, it was clearly laid out and marked by the architect. And everybody came to that session except ms. Allen. Then there was some confusion about where the lines were. And there was some other comments made about the flood. And they were marked in red tape there for the entire week, weekend, through the rainstorm, again monitored on Monday. I have digital photos of all of it and I have ordered and completed a survey in and around the offered land. I would propose if this offer does not get accepted, then this -- just to say indicate my side or lot 105 halfway out, 50% of the common area. In addition to the survey costs, the original request of the court to provide an engineered solution for the drive was constant with these pins that were associated with this swap off. Three foot of interior passage to accommodate a thousand dollars deck, it doesn't make sense to me, either, but that's what's up. That's my extension of an olive branch trying to get this thing done. On my side of the street, I have a utility easement, that I have got to contend with, as well as to allow ms. Allen free access in and out of her garage. I would expect the same in and out of my garage, which is the top half of the property, so -- so if it would help the court to understand what's on the table, I got -- I have a plat that I would like for you all to take a look at if you are interested.
>> we would love to see it. The same thing? Okay. You may have a few seconds left.
>> again, I知 volunteering that three feet free and clear and that would be titled over to ms. Allen. And I would chop that out. We met with the t.n.r. Engineer, talked about a smooth-line transition and it was agreed to that would be very cumbersome to have it surveyed under that criteria. That's why we have 90-degree angles to make it very strong and concise, easily to be surveyed, and all the time that effort is to give access around, you know, a thousand dollar deck.
>> what's important to the three feet now, make sure that I understand that.
>> so she can drive around this deck.
>> okay. All right. The rippinger is not work -- the ringer is not working?
>> no.
>> wave your hand when three minutes are up. [laughter] okay. Ms. Allen's lawyer.
>> thank you. Your honor, we -- yes, we did meet, I appreciate mr. Johnson agreeing to meet with us. If you vacate 25 feet as he's proposing, that will impair her access to her property. And under the transportation code, you know, the court decides that, I still believe she has an action in damages. When we left the meeting last week, mr. Johnson's engineer had drawn kind of a picture of what I thought was being proposed. It was my understanding of what was being proposed, I would like to provide this to the court as well so you can understand what our understanding was. It was vacating the right-of-way under the court's rules and the transportation code when that 50-foot right-of-way is vacated, down the center line the property [indiscernible] on either side. With that being said, mr. Johnson offered three feet. It was my understanding that it was three feet all the way down. Not just to provide for access around that tree, but also because of the location of where her garage is, her ability to turn at the bottom part of the property and to maneuver up at the top part of the property. This was the picture that was drawn. It my understanding that -- that the survey lines that were laid out, or the orange tape that was laid out, according to my client, was broken in some spots and this was always my understanding when I this conversations with mr. Johnson. When I got here this morning, we were fully agreeable to what was depicted in this picture. And then I got a copy of this survey that showed this jutting in and out. Which is not the three feet that I understood it to be. I discussed that with mr. Johnson. He indicated to me that he needs that additional 3 feet at the bottom part of the property and that he also needs some additional acreage of that and that's all that was on the table. That was never my understanding and -- you know, your honor, if -- if he is willing to give the three feet as depicted in this picture and in what we understood when we came here today, that that was what the agreement was, then you know we can all be satisfied. Mr. Johnson apparently is not satisfied with that, but I would like to show this to the court as to what was more or less represented in that meeting.
>> all right. So the point of disagreement here is whether three feet ought to be all the way or part of the way?
>> yes, sir. And that three feet in the drawing that you are looking at now was -- was evaluation effort, we had -- at the first prelim. When we were drawing that on the sketch, we were talking about granting an easement. When it was when he met with t.n.r. Out on site that the hard box location to grant access around that deck became the option and that's why you know to give -- to give me access to free and clear to my garage, I need the additional footage as does ms. Allen, which that drawing takes care of both parties.
>> judge. Can I ask a technical question?
>> sure.
>> tom, when there is a vacation involving this kind of -- this kind of private road, does it revert 50/50 to -- in terms of where we have a presumption of where the center line would be in terms of equally goes to the people on both parties?
>> yes. And then that's -- that's the issue we are dealing with when we are talking about this three feet.
>> okay.
>> the basic offer for mr. Johnson is the vacation will split the right-of-way between ms. Allen and mr. Johnson 50/50 right down the middle and what mr. Johnson is talking about is -- is giving up part that he would get via the vacation. He would basically still get half by the vacation, but he would deed back part of it to ms. Allen. So we are talking about does he deed back three feet all the way, the whole distance of the right-of-way, or just enough to get around this tree and this deck. That are -- that are sort of the rub here.
>> okay. But part two of this question is this. If there is no vacation, does ms. Allen have the ability to use all of the 50 feet of this roadway, is there some kind of presumed that she's got full access to the 50 feet as does mr. Johnson or it really is one of those down the center line thing in terms of who really has -- who really has the right to use that road?
>> if there's no vacation at all.
>> if there's no vacation, does she have a presumed right to use the full 50 feet?
>> I would say that -- that is unclear and that's really the source of the problem here and a lot of other problems we have with the right-of-way that's been dedicated but not accepted by the county. A legal status in terms of who can do what there isn't exactly clear. Clearly even though it hasn't been accepted, it has been dedicated, so the public can traverse it without trespassing against anybody. The county can accept it and as soon as the county accepts it, we have a whole lot more clearer jurisdiction over it, we can build a road there, we can control traffic there. We can clearly prohibit adjoining lot owners from building things and doing things in the right-of-way. But short of accepting it, it's really in sort of a legal gray area. And that's why these problems are so thorny.
>> but in terms of making it black-white, we do have the right to say indicate this property if we go by the strict letter of the law, center line, and we can move on.
>> right. And that was the whole idea behind the vacation. To get us outs of that gray area of dedicated but unaccepted right-of-way, and basically just saying either all of it or at least mr. Johnson's half is now private property, there is no public interest there and the county's out of the dispute.
>> why is that that both of you can't use the three feet in this agreement?
>> she wants more than her fair share.
>> judge, I think the answer there is mr. Johnson has stated that he wants to put a fence down the boundary if and when it's vacated.
>> why is that both of you can't use the three feet? That would eliminate the fence.
>> we were looking for a hard boundary between the properties, judge. As -- as submitted previously in the business case, we've had problems sharing and adhering to a shared concept. We've --
>> they've explain -- explain what has happened to you, with cars being parked with obstructionist -- I mean the whole --, I mean, this is not difficult. , I mean, it is not. I mean, I -- I appreciate an attorney representing their client. But this has gone on way beyond what it needed to go on and there is a right and a wrong thing here. The real wrong thing here is that you've got a neighborhood that has built something out beyond where they should have built it to begin with, but you know what, that's happened, we all are willing to live with that. But we've got somebody here willing to take a lot more out of the apple and -- in my opinion, I致e gone out there and I致e lived with this thing for a while. I知 telling you that there is something -- ms. Williams has a different deal. But between these two property people, it is real obvious that somebody is not intending to even begin to want to play fair. In this deal. And as far as I知 concerned that's the -- let's hear the testimony.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...i would hope that your directions followed a little bit more closely. Second, I know that this issue has been hashed out too far and quite frankly, right now my only concern is that whatever is done that the transportation department look at putting proper signage and removing the barricades so that there is not a hazardous parking situation when it's all said and done. That would actually alleviate my problem and keep me out of the other fights which I don't want to be in, I just want to make sure that somebody doesn't wind up dead at the end of my property and that I can get out of my property. So that's basically what I wanted to say. I just wanted to make sure that you bear in mind that at least it's in the minutes that I mentioned the barricades are a problem, and it's unsafe so that this matter will be looked at further when this is all said and done. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.
>> speaking of transportation department...
>> judge, I actually had a meeting scheduled this morning at 10:00 to talk with mr. Hall and mr. Greer about all of the signage, etcetera. And I値l have to naturally do that at a different time.
>> but we think that we can make that happen?
>> I believe we can absolutely.
>> and that needs to be part of it for ms. Williams and for the rest of the folks.
>> anybody else here on this item? We can make room at the table for you. One gentleman was standing there a few minutes ago. Did he leave? Did you give up on your comment or what?
>> no. [inaudible - no mic].
>> okay.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> judge, I would move that we accept b, the filing of an instrument to vacate half the cedar street right-of-way, only lot 105 locate understand the hughes lake subdivision number 1 in precinct three.
>> I値l second that. And Gerald, to make sure we understand, we're splitting it right down the middle.
>> splitting it down the middle. To heck with the three feet.
>> that's a private transaction between you all.
>> any more discussion.
>> I was willing to accept that this morning, but obviously we're not getting anywhere with that, so I think it needs to go to strictly b.
>> judge, can I add one thing? Utility companies have some utilities in mr. Johnson's half of the right-of-way. To allow us to state there, mr. Johnson has signed a public utility easement, so that will be filed in the deed records along with the order vacating if if that's what you vote to approve.
>> friendly.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? Show a unanimous Commissioners court. 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:
Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:23 AM