Travis County Commissioners Court
October 25, 2005
Item 17
We do have tom here. This may be a good time to go into executive session on number 17 if I could get my staff to come this way. We did receive a letter from a law firm this morning on this item, sort of at the last minute, otherwise it would have been a candidate for consent, right? So let's discuss it in executive session with legal counsel and see what action, if any, to take. 17 is to consider and take appropriate action on granting an exemption from platting requirements for a condominium project in precinct three, indian hill estates, three detached structures, one common wall unit, total of four dwelling units. 20.89 acres, indian hill road. No fiscal posting. Sewage service to be provided by on-site wastewater system, water control and improvement district number 17. Water supply city of Austin, two-mile e.t.j. We will convene in executive session for a discussion with legal counsel under the legal consultation exception to the open meetings act, but will return to open court before taking any action.
we have returned from executive session where we discussed item number 17 involving the indian hill estates matter and a letter we received this morning on behalf of stewart king, who resides on indian hill drive, from the law firm of womack and mcclish.
>> judge, I would move that we approve the action of granting the exemption for this project. I know that tom has a few comments that he would like to make.
>> in response to the letter mr. Mcclish sent, let's just make it clear for the record that we're dealing with building a driveway in a right-of-way that has been dedicated to the public by plat. And mr. Meisler's land adjoins that right-of-way, mr. King's land adjoins that right-of-way, so mr. Meisler has the right to use this right-of-way to access his land, mr. King has the right to use this right-of-way to access his land, the public has the right to use this right-of-way. Your approval of this item and the issuance of the building permit that will come out of tnr doesn't change the status of the right-of-way and who has the legal right to use it, nor does simply constructing the driveway there. It will remain public right-of-way after you approve this, after mr. Meisler builds his driveway. If mr. King wants to build a driveway in this right-of-way, he can. If and when he does that,, who maintains the driveway between him and mr. Meisler, who pays for what, that's a matter between them because basically since they both have the right to use this right-of-way, it's as if they had a shared easement. And they will just have to look to the common-law of shared easements to sort out who has the right to do what and who has the right to be paid to do what or who has to do what for themselves. So this action does not change any of that. It's a public right-of-way. And the last thing I wanted to say is it is not a county right-of-way. The county has not accepted this right-of-way. It's not a county roadway. If and when there are disagreements between mr. Meisler and mr. King over who can tap into the driveway, who has to build what, who has to maintain what, that will be between them. And since it's not accepted by the county, the county won't have a stake in that. So we just need to make that clear for the record. And there are two documents that need to be filed as a condition of your approval of this matter, the restrictive covenant and the maintenance agreement.
>> you will share those documents with mr. King?
>> sure.
>> any more discussion of the motion? Yes, sir.
>> I apologize for arriving late. I represent mr. King, and --
>> your name, please.
>> mr. Christian brooks. I would just say briefly that mr. King objects to this, and maintains that this should be developed as a county road.
>> you stand behind the letter that came from your firm basically?
>> yes, sir. That's all. Thank you.
>> thank you. Any more discussion? All in favor of the motion? That passes by unanimous vote.
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:
Tuesday, October 25, 2005 4:18 PM