Travis County Commissioners Court
July 24, 2007
Item 2
Item 2 number 2 is a public hearing to receive comments regarding a plat for recording in precinct three: revised plat of lots 50, 51, 52 and a portion of lot 49 and 0.348 and 0.570 acre tracts, lakehurst subdivision (4 total lots)
>> move to open the public hearing.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes unanimously.
>> this is also a revised plat. We ask that the court not take action on this today. There's still a drainage issue that needs to be resolved before final action is taken. The -- there is objection, we believe there are people here present today that would like to speak to the court about this. I'm going to kind of step through what the revisions are about and what issues there are.
>> hi, anne bolin. There will four lots in this revised plat. Some of the acreage that was being added to was land that I believe came from lcra's Lake Travis and the objection that we had heard of previously had to do with an existing driveway on part of lot 49 to an adjacent tract. So that's the one objection. But the other thing that I would say is that we are working with the engineer to -- to, you know, ensure the adequacy of the drainage easements. Drainage easement on this lot, just to serve the drainage coming off of the county road. That's why we are not asking for action today.
>> we are still working on that piece.
>> on just that issue. We just need to be sure what we ask for is appropriate and to -- to just the drainage coming off the road and we are working with their engineer on this.
>> if you are here on the item no. 2 public hearing, and would like to address the court, please come forward at this time. And if you will give us your name, we would be happy to receive your comments. Any one of those four available chairs? Will do. And if you would just speak right directly into that mic so our millions of fans in central Texas will hear you clearly.
>> good morning.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. My name is jim witliff, I'm a consultant that helps the property owner, michael richter and his family put this revised plat application together. I'll say simply that -- that from the beginning it was -- it was my awareness that there was a driveway that -- an existing driveway that ran across lots 50 and 49, however, I was told that the adjacent property owner had their own driveway on their property, which at one point was newly paved and at some point after that the pavement was torn out. And I did do research, I talked to the surveyor, I went to the courthouse, did research and found no access easements on this property. So -- so we believe that -- that this was just a -- a convenience driveway that people were using and that there was no legal right to it. But the property owners here, he got some photographs that he will share with you, he can talk more specifically. I don't have any other comments at this time.
>> okay. Yes, sir?
>> I'm mike richter, a property owner out there. I guess that basically summarizes it. There was an existing driveway on that road or on that lot, and -- and none of the adjacent property owners have an access issue. They all have their own access, so -- so I believe it's irrelevant to our development.
>> you are the applicant? You and mr. -- you are working together?
>> yes.
>> okay. Yes, sir?
>> my name is bill brown and I'm mr. Richter's attorney. Just here to answer any questions that might arise.
>> so you all are in favor of the application.
>> yes, we are.
>> okay. Ma'am, would you like to take that chair there in the middle? Are you with them?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> anybody else here on this item?
>> I am.
>> okay. We will need one or two of those chairs. Anybody else here on this item, please come forward at this time. Okay.
>> my name is
>> [indiscernible] 19919 lake hurst. I don't live there yet because we are rebuilding the house, there were some issues with it. The driveway that mr. Richter is talking about is more like a parking area. It was such a -- there was such an incline, such, you know, so steep you couldn't really use it as a driveway, it was a hairpin turn. Every time it rained mr. Polson got pieces of the driveway down on his property. It kept sliding off, it was eroding so we removed it. The -- we have used that road, mr. Polson and his family, his parents, his in-laws and grand parents have used that road/driveway since -- well it's been there since 1930. It's been the driveway, our mailboxes are at the top of that driveway, that's the driveway to our home. So ...
>> the driveway that they are talking about is my primary entrance to my house. It's the only way that I can get to it. It's been in concrete for -- since the '60s.
>> your name is?
>> my name is steve poalson. And I own the lot number 47. And again, you know, it's my primary entrance to my driveway. My mailbox is there, my house is situated such that I can't get in any other way. When he bought the property, it was there. It's been in concrete forever. It's not like, you know, he didn't know what was going on. You know, he can do whatever he wants as far as I'm concerned with his property if he would just leave the driveway. How he wants to slice and dice it really doesn't matter to me as long as I can get in and out of my house.
>> it's a very deep ravine there.
>> who owns the driveway?
>> everybody.
>> we all own portions of it.
>> it goes on all of our properties.
>> so this -- is this driveway an easement on it?
>> no, there's no easement legally recorded on that.
>> restrictive easement on his piece for us.
>> you have lived there how long?
>> 15 years and I've lived there personally for 15 years. That property has been in our family since '42. And it was a fishing cabin way back when. And, you know, that's just how we get in and out of there. And back then again it was all just old dirt roads and such. Now there's -- there's paved roads and the driveway is concrete and -- you know, it's not like it's a big surprise that -- it was there when he bought it.
>> our mailboxes are there.
>> so if we approve the plat we can do what to the driveway?
>> it legally has no status, that's the problem. I mean probably that's not my opinion, you the ought to ask your county attorney what legal status the driveway has. But in my opinion it's -- as far as platting is concerned, it doesn't exist. And it doesn't necessarily mean that the property owners might not have rights to use it given the duration that it's been there. But I think that is probably something that you ought to hear about in executive session.
>> is this -- this won't sit wrong with any of you all people sitting at the table, but is this issue that they are having regarding unclear clouded rights to this driveway, does this have anything to do with the plat that's before us, though, with the decision before us or is this just a legal dispute among the parties here regarding I guess an adverse possession?
>> I think the latter. In my opinion it's the latter.
>> what we do here today won't have any impact on either side of this argument?
>> well, if we approve the plat what will you do with the driveway?
>> I propose to both of these two folks here that we would be perfectly willing to give them an easement. Our plan is to build a house on this property as it's platted and we are more than willing to give them an easement over the new driveway we are going to build for this house. However, none of them have -- have responded to my offers. So it's clearly not about access. It's in my opinion trying to block this development.
>> what happened -- would it help for us to give you 10 to 15 minutes to eat in the conference room, directly across the hallway from that door. Because it looks like either you are headed to the courthouse to litigate this matter, not everybody will emerge a winner, I guaranty you that. If this in fact is a legal dispute, we shouldn't have been in the middle of it anyway, if you all can put your heads together, work out what you want as access to your home, you say that you have used this driveway for years, the applicant seems to be willing to grant that easement but he wants to build his home on the rest of the property, I don't see a real, real big problem except the court getting in the middle of it. That's what happened before. We have available free of charge beginning right now.
>> as I said, we'll facilitate getting together and it doesn't make sense does it.
>> I would as soon do it now and be done with it.
>> we have tried it before, let's try it again.
>> this doesn't appear that we're the ones who should decide this dispute because we're --
>> I understand. That may be we don't want to be in a position where we are added fuel to the fire.
>> work out every issue that you can, let us know what we can do to help. Move that rerecess this item, joe, until further notice from you this morning.
>> thank you.
>> how's that.
>> can you hold that point until then.
>> we had already asked for the -- that it be postponed one week knowing that there was conflict. So if you want to act on it today that's fine.
>> we still have an engineering issue.
>> that's right.
>> recessing the public hearing.
>> yes.
>> hoping they will come back and give us some word, a good word.
>> okay. Recess number 2, further notice this morning. Hopefully within the next hour.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes unanimously ______________________________________________________________________________
>> Now, we do have our friends from item no. 2. Who are back and number 2 that we opened the public hearing on and then recessed it. 2. Receive comments regarding a plat for recording in precinct three: revised plat of lots 50, 51, 52 and a portion of lot 49 and 0.348 and 0.570 acre tracts, lakehurst subdivision (4 total lots). This involves the old driveway that's been used for years and the question of what -- whose is it, what too we do with it? Okay.
>> all right. Well, we met and I believe we have a tentative agreement that we are going to work this out on our own. So we are going to offer them access, comparable to what they have today. We are just going to relocate it to a different spot and they were okay with that. So -- so again it's not an issue for this particular plat I don't think. But we are going to work it out on our own.
>> appreciate you doing that.
>> yes.
>> thanks for kicking us out of it. Other times we would be offend the, today we are happy for you.
>> I think it will work for all of us, I'm glad to get threat myself.
>> we still have the drainage issue to work out.
>> [indiscernible]
>> [inaudible - no mic] pure and simple the drainage issue without
>> [indiscernible]
>> okay.
>> good news.
>> we appreciate your willingness to work with the neighbors. Keep us in mind if we can be of assistance in the future.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> move that we close the public hearing.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you all very much. Joe just walked out. If we can get the parties here on 15 we will call it up.
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, July 25, 2007, 18:30 AM