Travis County Commissioners Court
September 25, 2007
Item 2
Number 2 is a public hearing to receive comments regarding a plat for recording in precinct 3, revised plat of lots 256 and 257, travis settlement.
>> good morning, travis bowling from transportation and natural resource department. The owner of 6.006 acres of lots 256 and 257 in travis settlement is seeking to resubdivide into two lots. He currently owns two illegal lots, and by this action he is basically making them into legal lots. There is a third portion of this lot, the owner of which would like to also make legal, and he's in the process of doing some survey work and we expect he will catch up with this owner in making legal that third part remainder. So the action today is just taking a portions of this lot and making it two legal lots. We have had one inquiry from the homeowners association trying to figure out whether or not this violates any restrictive covenants in the association. It does not. The lot size still comports with their restrictions as well as the setbacks. And so I think we have satisfied the homeowners association that this is not conflicting with their rules.
>> any objections called to our attention?
>> use that one. No objection, just one inquiry.
>> would anybody like to give testimony during this public hearing? Please come forward.
>> I would, sir.
>> please come forward and have a seat. If you would give us your full name.
>> michael mackris, 4520 blacksmith cove, the only home built on what was originally platted as 9 acres in that area. I notice that there was a sign noticing this hearing approximately I would say two to three weeks ago, and since then I undertook efforts to try and ascertain what the intentions were of the owner of the remainder of the 9 acres, and I have not been able to get that information. I have not received any response from them. I would consider joining in this request to resubdivide the 9 acres, although I have concerns about the amount of traffic that further development of the remaining 6 acres might cause. The only access to the remaining 6 acres would be a very small driveway that passes basically right by my home, and I've got concerns about the amount of traffic that could be generated by as many as four additional residences being built on those 6 acres. So I would respectfully ask for continuance of this matter so I can receive more information and be a little better informed and possibly join in in this matter after being better informed. The only other concern that I would have at this time, and again, I'm hoping that more information might resolve this concern, there's a water well that currently is the only water for my property. It's a shall dough well, about 252 feet, I believe. It's the glenn rose rest reservoir. I would like more information about how as many as four other homes on this acreage could impact the quality and the quantity of the water in that area. And again, I have not been able to to really receive any information from the -- from the owner of the remaining lot there. So I would respectfully request a very short continuance of that so hopefully we can have some communication here and have these questions answered and get a little bit more information. I might also -- excuse me. I might also mention that I was told that there was going to be a letter sent out to all the residents in that area by Thursday of last week. I'm seeing that letter for the first time this morning. It never came in the mail. I'm not sure if any of the other residents got it. I can't speak on behalf of any of the other residents or homeowners, but I would think it would be prudent to make sure everybody is fully informed and have received the information that the county had intended that the residents receive before this matter be taken up finally. Thank you.
>> how did you find out about this? From the sign?
>> yes, ma'am. Yes, your honor.
>> who knows whether I'm honorable or not. And you are on the -- you are to the west of the property that's being considered for resubdividing?
>> that's correct, I believe so.
>> what's your name again?
>> michael macris. I've never been in Commissioners court before so I'm not sure of the protocol.
>> you don't have to stand for us.
>> we normally stand for our guests.
>> that's right.
>> anybody else to give testimony at this public hearing, please come forward. There are three seats available. If you would like to give testimony during this public hearing, three of you should come forward now. Your name and we would be happy to get your comments.
>> good morning, your honor, Commissioners. David gotfried. I represent dave brenner who could not be here this morning. He was the previous landowner and he sold the property to the current landowner and had the obligation to subdivide the property. The subdivision process was properly noticed for all of the residents there and the only objection that was ever received was from the homeowners association. That objection has been resolved. There are some ex ti jent circumstances, they are very ex ti jent circumstances and for brelt if the subdivision isn't amoved today he is going to get sued tomorrow. The landowner has been patient with us to get the subdivision finished. The objections by mr. Macris are more not about whether or not these should become legal lots but what could be built on them, what should be built on them and what could negatively impact the property. And I would respectfully submit to the court that this is not the proper forum for deciding what could or should be built on this property. The current landowner is entitled to make these illegal lots into legal lots and then there would be another forum more appropriate for deciding what the development should be. Thank you.
>> david, how have we gotten to a deal today where tomorrow if something doesn't get done today that somebody has a lawsuit? I mean how in the world have we gotten to this degree? I mean maybe
>> [inaudible] answer that. But you can see the spot it puts them in. I don't want somebody to get sued, but I would also like for mr. Macris to get, you know, his due diligence. Something doesn't add up to me here.
>> I understand. It has taken us a very long time to get the property subdivided, to get the proper surveys done and to get the paper through the county. Not -- I mean it's not their diligence, it's really the parties that are trying to get it subdivided. They've been working hard to do it. I guess the issue is it was properly noticed for us to come here today, for me to find out today, oh, we have this problem because the current landowner won't tell me what he might build on this property tomorrow or in a year from now makes it very difficult for us to get done what we need to get done. If I had gotten a call a couple weeks ago, I would have make sure the current landowner responded. Today this is not an issue what could or should be built on this property.
>> but it is an issue if it may adversely impact others. He said he tried to contact the owner and was unable to -- where is the owner at 9:28 this morning?
>> I don't know where the owner is.
>> if the owner were here in court, we would ask you to go to the executive session conference room.
>> john sellers, I live at 4506 blacksmith cove, two lots east. I wanted to make the Commissioners court aware of the fact that there is a declarant who controls all the affairs, michael reagan. And I think according to mr. Haguenhous nl, mr. Reagan has never been consulted with regard to this. He still controls all of the affairs regarding travis settlement. He can change the deed restrictions as will and he as far as I know has never been consulted. I think it might be wise for him to be consulted before any action takes place. I also want to second the fact that I never received any notice of any intention of the people who wanted to take this action either. The only reason I'm here at this meeting is because of the sign that was posted.
>> what was your name?
>> john salazar.
>> on the end?
>> my name is craig cusack and I have a power of attorney from mr. Bill evans hospital property abuts this current action on the north side. I'm also a travis settlement landowner. I'm here and bill actually became aware of this as a function of a neighbor telling me about the sign about the replatting. Mr. Evans has never received proper notification of this action by the property owner. And as far as I know, the declarant has never reviewed this proposed action either. I do feel that the representation by mr. Fener's attorney is a gross misrepresentation concerning notification. I do appeal as a licensed geo scientist in the state of Texas that there are water quality concerns due to this platting and also tied into the placement of both wells antiseptic systems on this property. I also question whether or not this action or proposed action does fit all the building setback requirements under the deed restrictions. And I would like to say that this is not just a function of taking lots and making legal lots out of them, this is actually a replat, a gross replat of existing lots. I understand the concern relative to the fact that some of these property owners may have been sold a poor bill of goods by the prior developers, but this subdivision has a history of total disregard by multiple developers, and this one is no different. This developer actually came in and cut down over half acre's worth of trees, well over 80 trees on mr. Evans property and that is likely to end up in a lawsuit as well. So overall, I would like to just summarize the fact that both mr. Evans and myself are adamantly opposed to this resubdivision, replatting, and that before any action is taken, there should have been proper notification of all adjacent property owners, and I feel that the -- those proposing this replatting have failed to follow the county rules. Thank you.
>> now, we routinely grant additional time when these matters come before us for the first public hearing because, not surprisingly, typically neighbors show up and express concerns, have questions. Typically also when we're able to get them together in a conference room of some sort after that first public hearing, they are able to work through most of the issues. And so it seems to me that that's the situation we're confronted with today. Obviously we cannot resolve all those issues during this public hearing. I don't know if there is any way to get around our basically postponing this for a week or two. And that lawsuit, I mean is somebody threatening to sue tomorrow or --
>> yes, we've had a settlement order to buy some time so that we could get the notice out to all the landowners so that if there was a problem, we could find out about it ahead of time instead of finding out about it for the first time here.
>> did you notify the t.n.r. Staff of a pending lawsuit determination if whatever didn't go accordingly, then a lawsuit would be filed? The t.n.r. Staff is sitting at the table today.
>> I did speak with mr. Headenhousen.
>> I said t.n.r. Staff.
>> county --
>>
>> [inaudible] let me identify that t.n.r., joe geiselman and his staff.
>> headenhouse and his staff are part of t.n.r.
>> sorry.
>> I've been trying to shepherd this thing along as best I could and let everybody know whatever hoops I need to jump through in order to help process this resubdivision plat I would do. So yeah, I mean --
>> we normally post a sign on the property, and we hope that neighbors who see it will either contact us or the applicant owner. Typically it's during the public hearing in court that neighbors with objections and concerns present and basically express them.
>> I understand, your honor.
>> so today's public hearing is about as routine as you can get on something like this in a public hearing. I don't see any way around us really postponing this matter. I don't know that it helps any to postpone it one week. Two weeks probably would be more appropriate to give you all a chance to get together. Now, those here can give you their contact information. And my recommendation would be, you know, to get together and in two weeks when it comes back, if the issues have not been resolved, we'll just do our best to go ahead and take action anyway. But I don't hear any insurmountable objections. Seems to me to be a lack of information more than anything else. But if I lived out there, I guess I would be concerned about how this proposed action would impact me and my property. And that's what I'm hearing, plus apparently some of the previous actions taken some found to be objectionable. I don't know whether they were expressed to the owner or not. But the owner may as well hear -
>> we're kind of beyond that really. We're at the stage of individuals saying, hey, this may adversely impact me and I have more questions than answers and I want to speak with the owner.
>> I understand.
>> we normally would accommodate that.
>> I guess the question to me is are you going to carry out your lawsuit?
>> I'm sorry.
>> the lawsuit that's pending to be filed tomorrow, is that still going to happen?
>> I have no control over it. The current landowner, if the subdivision plat isn't approved, has told us over and over that they are going to -- that they are going to file a lawsuit against mr. Fener for not getting the subdivision plat approved according to the time lines which were agreed upon which we all thought was an ample amount of time to get it done, and then we extended it by two months. But I understand that's not the Commissioners court's problem.
>> seems to me the new owner ought to come and meet his new neighbors at the conference.
>> I will suggest that to his attorney.
>> yeah, and let him know it will be back on the court's agenda in two weeks. We really ought to give you all an opportunity to work through these. If not, staff needs to let us know two, three days in advance outstanding issues at that point so we'll have some notice of what we'll be asked to decide that Tuesday. From the backup that we have, it's a fairly routine matter that typically we would add to our consent motion, but, you know, it's not uncommon to get residents here who express, you know, questions, concerns as we have gotten today. I mean I don't know -- do you have a better idea for us today? Staff is available to try to facilitate the discussion, but I think we need to know what issues will be presented to the court for resolution 10 days from today, 14 days from today, you know, we'll know a little bit in advance what's expected of us and we'll be able to come in and basically take action. So it will not be posted for another public hearing two weeks from now, it will be posted for action. And if we are told the parties have gotten together and resolved their differences, nobody will be happier than the five of us. But if differences have not been resolved, then we'll do our best to resolve them. So, I mean, all we can suggest to the new property owner is attend that meeting, meet his neighbors, and if these concerns are not dealt with, my guess is they probably just pass on him or her.
>> I'm clearly hearing -- I mean from craig, I mean this is not -- this is not a happy deal for some folks. And, you know, people get pretty upset with people when they start taking down trees and they start doing all of these kind of things and so there's some damage control that needs to take place here. I mean -- I mean if you are going to get this thing to a point where, you know, the owner needs this thing to be. So I would say that you all really need to get at the bargaining table and see if you can -- I mean hopefully the lawsuit can be aborted at this stage, and you all work with it, but it sounds like these folks really want this guy at the table and say let's work with you. And that's what the court always does, I mean, whenever we hear this sort of, you know, input.
>> if my client, who was the prior owner, was the current owner and was applying to the court, I promise you he would be here and he would have spoken with the neighbors. I can't speak for the current owner, but I'll certainly suggest that course of action.
>> you are the messenger, I realize that.
>> if there is not a meeting room available in travis settlement, we'll make it available here at the county.
>> thank you, your honor.
>> one last point I wanted to make, I think it's highly likely there are property owners in travis settlement that will be affected by this replatting that aren't even aware of it because some of these property owners live outside of Austin. For instance, mr. Evans lives in houston. And so it used to be -- and I don't know whether this has been changed or not, that a replatting required a notification by certified mail. And this happens to be one of those situations that it's highly advisable that that be utilized due to the fact that many of these property owners live outside of Austin. And they may never drive by until this replat is actually done and over with before they ever become aware of that action.
>> is that accurate? Is that something that we -- or joe, is that something that we are obligated to do, to send a registered letter to these folks?
>> it is.
>> and have those registered letters been sent?
>> I believe they have. I'll review the return receipts from -- that's part of sending certified mail, we get back returned receipts. I'll review -- yes, it was sent, and I will look through here and see, you know --
>> just give us -- we need that feedback and we certainly need that covered if we're going to, you know, go forward with this thing.
>> okay.
>> move the public hearing be closed.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We'll repost number 44, the action item, two weeks from today. That's October 9th. Good luck to you all. Let us know if we can help.
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 26, 2007, 18:30 AM