Travis County Commissioners Court
January 15, 2008
Item 3
Number 3 is what the residents are here on?
>> uh-huh.
>> number 3 is to consider and take appropriate action regarding a request to authorize the filing of an instrument to vacate 10 feet of a 25 foot wide drainage easement located along the east lot line of lot 5, block h, of long canyon ii-a, a subdivision in precinct 3.
>> joe gieselman and anna bolin with the transportation natural resources department. You saw this agenda item, actually, last year in December. And there was issues that you sent the parties to -- back to discuss. They have done that. There are still -- they are still unresolved. Anna will step through those unresolved issues. I believe the parties are here to make various presentations.
>> hi, anna bolin, transportation natural resources.
>> good morning, anna.
>> we met with both parties and then I believe the -- the two parties met independently of -- of us after that meeting. To my knowledge, there is no written agreement by these following issues: they -- the hoa believes they have trail rights on the drainage easement. If the drainage easement is vacated from -- if 10 feet is taken off of that, they have -- they are concerned about their rights to use a trail in that location. Another issue that was raced was that as they were going through, the applicant was going through the process with -- with us to work on vacating the drainage, part of the drainage easement, they were also going through the onsite group and getting a septic permit and apparently part of the septic leech line was put into a conservation easement that was dedicated after the plat but prior to the septic application coming into the transportation and natural resources.
>> what's the issue there now, make sure that I understand it.
>> basically the design of the septic system encroaches on an easement that was not on the plat but was filed at the time that the application was made for the septic system. Basically he's got a drain field in the easement.
>> what's staff's position on that?
>> well, it's separate and aside from this action on the plat but it is an issue. Had the designer known about the easement, he would not have signed a -- designed a drainage field within that easement. I believe the resolution would be for the drain field to be redesigned to take it out of the easement.
>> has the septic system been installed.
>> yes.
>> there's concern about potential drainage --
>> my question is what's staff position? You did a good job of laying out, I think, giving both sides, what's staff's recommendation to the court today?
>> preferably that the septic field be redesigned so as to remove the septic field from the easement.
>> okay.
>> the homeowners, this one is more related to the actual item in court today. The -- the hoa is concerned about potential drainage of water on to neighboring property. And water quality concerns relating to that. Staff engineers reviewed the -- the application and the engineering that was provided by the applicant to -- you know, just for this very thing. The drainage, it will be the same amount coming out of the pike as opposed to the channel. So the neighbors spoont be impacted in any way. Same amount coming out of the pipe.
>> what's staff's recommendation.
>> that we approve it.
>> one thing that was raised by the homeowners association was that the applicant did not go to them and work with them at the same time they were working with us. I don't really have a recommendation there. I don't think that that would stop us from approving the vacation. I think it would have been nice, but I don't have the recommendation on that. Our code doesn't speak to that.
>> is it a fact that we encourage those communications but --
>> yes, certainly.
>> but it has not been our policy to require them.
>> right.
>> where the matter has come to us in court, we have used gentle persuasion to get the parties together if they have not done so previously. As a result of the failure to communicate, the -- the perceived
>> [indiscernible] that resulted of the issues that you are laying out.
>> right.
>> so their position is if we had communicated earlier we would have been able to work through these issues, is that the implication?
>> hopefully the parties would have worked together and had it resolved in a margin that was acceptable to both parties prior to it being at court.
>> okay. Is there a number 5?
>> I don't know that I would differentiate a specific number 5. A lot of these are very interrelated so I think these are some of the main issues.
>> let's go back to number one. Trail rights in the area of the easement. If we grant these, reduce the -- reduce the size of the trail? And residents believe they are adversely impacted by that?
>> I would believe that would be the h.o.a.'s position.
>> what's staff's recommendation?
>> I would recommend that they work together to find some avenue to gain them the trail rights. But as it relates to the drainage easement in our requirements, I don't -- you know, I would look to legal, but I don't think that would have an impact.
>> the question then is what -- what duty or responsibility do we have in our consideration of the -- of the easement request to preserve and protect the trail rights of residents? Is that really the issue for us? You will be in a position to opine on that in executive session if we go in there?
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> is that something that you need a little time on --
>> I would like as much time as possible.
>> next -- is 15 or 20 minutes too long?
>> [laughter]
>> I値l try my best.
>> so are those the issues? Commissioners? Eckhardt?
>> say indicating 10 feet of the -- vacating 10 feet and the easement provides for --
>> the original subdivider did the drainage easement, it was originally like an open channel.
>> I知 sorry the trail issue.
>> the trail is not per plat. And it's my understanding that the trail was done by a boy scout group several years ago.
>> so is it -- is it by agreement or what's the -- is it verbal agreement, is it written anywhere?
>> that I don't know. I値l find out.
>> and then the drainage field being in the -- was it an environmental easement, is that what I heard?
>> conservation easement.
>> I知 sorry. The septic field was in a conservation, not drainage.
>> but the recommendation on the septic system is that it should be redesigned out of the easement.
>> out of the easement, yeah.
>> now, why is it that the easement was not discoverable --
>> it probably was discoverable, but filed by a separate instrument so the designer would have gone to the plat typically, the easements are on the plat. He did design away from another easement that was on the plat, he would have had to do further research. You might say he missed it, you know. It was there to be discovered. Just didn't go far enough to find it.
>> the rose for finding that additional instrument would have been just to go to the property records and pull whatever was underneath that, under that -- that metes and bounds designation.
>> right. There's not necessarily an incompatible use there. It's just that he should have sought the owner of that right to clear it before designing and installing a septic system. Not necessarily a conflict of interest or conflict of uses within that easement and perhaps there's still some way that they can work out agreement so that the underlying use of the property is still used for septic system, but the surface rights are not jeopardized in any way in terms of the conservation purposes of that easement. To my knowledge, this is not a spray system so it's probably underground and that still conflict, but with the septic system you have to make sure other uses do not compromise the septic system. I don't know enough about the use of the conservation easement to say that there's a direct conflict between the uses, but it appears to me that they might be able to work it out if they wanted to.
>> why is staff's recommendation redesign and removal.
>> only because there's a clear cut, no conflict at that point. If the opener is willing to do that, it totally separates that issue, we are looking for a path to resolution here.
>> so your recommendation is predicated on -- on this being the addendum.
>> basically my recommendation is predicated on the fact that they have not been able to resolve the issue. So the way to get it resolved is so redesign it, take it out, there's no longer any conflict.
>> if it had come to our discussion that the septic system was on the easement --
>> we would have taken the same route.
>> you cannot get permission to use the easement, you need to redesign.
>> okay. Any other questions of staff? Who wants to be next? Applicant or residents? Okay, please come forward. We have four issues before us. If we should add others let us know that. We would be happy to get your take on these and if you would start with your name, we would appreciate that.
>> good morning, I知 andy allen.
>> should I just start talking so should they introduce themselves.
>> we finish first. We appreciate that because we probably need your seat once you get done. So others can come up.
>> we came here and -- in December, and at that time one of the commissions -- Commissioners asked you should discuss this, work out your differences, come back out. The representatives from the homeowners association, by the way I live in the neighborhood, I知 a member of the long canyon phase 2 phase 3 neighborhood. They had said no, there are too many issues we need to work through it. The next night we had a meeting with them at that meeting we talked in and the goal was to say let's work through these issues, let's move forward and leave this meeting moving hand in hand to build the house and move on.
>> do you all have other copies for the clerk?
>> need one for the clerk.
>> thank you.
>> at that meeting we were informed there were only two members of the board there, this was more of a kind of fact finding meeting. So we had that meeting. During that meeting, we -- we went back and forth, talked about -- they explained here are the issues that we believe are involved in the entire build. I guess today we refer only to the ask for the vacation of the 10 feet of the 25-foot easement, there was an issue that has a topographiccal survey that didn't show an extra easement. A septic field was put in that conservation easement on page 14, but we have already agreed in writing to take that drainage field and move it. So that is not an issue. We have agreed in writing. We also agreed in writing when the president of the homeowners association submitted a letter saying that you have the right to put a driveway there, you have the right to do your work to the drainage area, he says if you will grant us access and permission to use that -- that area as access to a trail behind. We sign that also in September that's on page 4. Subsequently they have come back and said okay well, understand that we have this document saying that you are giving us permission to do that. But now we want you to grant us something that would be a recordable instrument. So it would mandate that future homeowners also allow that easement to be there in the phase 2 phase 3 homeowners association there are no recorded trails. In long canyon the trails are in phase 1. There is no deeded easement to the trails in phase 2. There is no other homeowner in phase two or phase 3 that has a deeded easement granting access to any trails. It doesn't seem like has would be fair for us to -- to force the future home owner who buys this house to abide by rules and be the only one who has to abide by those rules. After our first meeting with the board, they said please go away and make a proposal to us. We come back and said we are ready to make the proposal because of the holidays we were on the schedule for the 8th, they said we can't meet with you until the 9th. We canceled hill country here on the 8th. On the 9th we had a meeting, laid out all of the issues, the next day submitted an e-mail that here we are willing to do this. We granted this, we are moving this, we believe that we have cleared all of the issues is what the e-mail said it is now the 15th, they are requesting we still haven't a chance to respond to your e-mail, we would rather this not go to the Commissioners court. In the end there are issues relating to the evacuation of the 25 feet down to 15 fweet, let's hash out those issues. I don't see how the septic drain in a different part of the lot is part of that and the other issues that -- that could still be on the -- I guess in the end the -- it was a 25-foot drainage easement and water was channeled on top of a -- of what looked like a driveway. 25 feet by 150 feet. When we submitted the plans, we submitted the engineer's design to take that out and put a pipe underneath. That's been done. That's been approved by the county. The engineer decented it. She's here to talk about it. The water comes out at the exact same spot just told by anna, it flows the exact same direction downhill away from the others. This is between two and three acre lot. So I guess if there are issues vacating from 25 down to 15 feet, those are what we should discuss. I don't know of any. Where we are saying if -- if this is the first I致e heard of it. But if they are making an contention that even if that were a trail access and we're saying well it was 25 feet and now it's 15, according to the -- to what terry will tell you about the phase 1 where they actually have the trails and accesses, I believe those are 10 feet wide.
>> okay. Why don't we see what the issues are then. Is there a representative for the residents here? Here's a chair right here next to joe. Can you just lay out for us what the outstanding issues are for us today.
>> my name is peter
>> [indiscernible] president of the long canyon phase 2 and 3 homeowners association association.
>> repeat your name.
>> peter torgramson.
>> spell it.
>> torgrimson.
>> thank you.
>> there's a variety of issues that the homeowners association has with the developer. Aside from the ones aired this morning. Those issues do not relate directly to the vacation of this drainage easement and we have not brought them up to the county.
>> do you have any issues related to the item before the court today?
>> yes, we do.
>> okay.
>> we have several, several items that we want to address. We have a group of speakers that is prepared to address these separate items in an efficient manner, I would propose that we hear their testimony.
>> that's fine with me. It would have been better to get them in writing. That was my request I think last time this was before us so we could have mulled over those issues and facts and reasons before today.
>> I apologize for that.
>> we don't make much progress without hearing what the outstanding issues still are. Can you give us some issues or are you deferring to others.
>> I will state the issues.
>> we were in interacting with the developer, we met with them last Wednesday and at the conclusion of that meeting it was clear we were not together at least from our standpoint. Our understanding was that the developer agreed to postpone this hearing for two days to do that. He presented us a proposal, we are in the process of preparing a counter proposal. On Friday we discovered that contrary to our agreement to postpone this session the developer decided they would go ahead with this session, so we have been working this weekend and yesterday to get prepared for that. There's no defense for not having arguments in writing before you, but we were not aware until Friday evening that we were actually going to be in this hearing today. We have --
>> how issues.
>> to speak today we have issues on the drainage pipe that's been installed in the drainage easement. We have issues on the trail rights and some comments on the process and interacting with the developer on these, those are the items that we have to speak to today. We are though the going to waste your time with all of the issues that do not relate to this trail or I mean this drainage easement vacation.
>> let's take the drainage pipe.
>> okay. Our -- I値l speak to that directly. We have several issues to the drainage pipe. They consist of technical issues and financial issues. Our water quality engineer has not been able to be here today, but he did prepare an affidavit distributed to the Commissioners. I will go over the principal points of that affidavit. In the process of interacting with the developer, we requested that they put their engineer into contact with our water quality engineer. They have not done that. So where we sound today is -- where we stand today is the drainage issue problems. As the drainage pipe is currently installed, our water quality engineer perceived several problems with it. Number one the true drainage area is larger than the calculations that are presented show. The actual drainage area includes not only the drainage area of
>> [indiscernible] cove but up into part of bell mountain drive above and portions of the lots on either side that drain on to the culverts beside the roadway. The current pipe design ends in a rock gabion or some structure, I知 not sure what the proper name is. Which is liable to be clogged up eventually and will present a maintenance problem. That's perceived to be a major future problem for some future owner. And heavy flow situations it's -- it's completely unclear that the drainage water will actually be routed into the -- they will all be routed into the collector box at the top of the pipe. Not in the affidavit, but in my inspection of the property yesterday, it appears doesn't appear that the drainage pipe is installed much closer to the property line than the drawings that we have been presents with show. Bottom line with that is we wish to not have this drainage easement vacated until we can resolve all of the issues with the drainage pipe itself. To make sure that it will actually function to completely replace that wider drainage easement. The financial issues with the drainage pipe are several. Given that there is a maintenance issue with the current installation, the concern of the homeowners association is completely fiduciary. We are not responsible for any maintenance of that facility. I spoke to the county staff last week, late last week, their position was that any maintenance is the responsibility of the homeowner. I spoke with andy allen on Friday afternoon, his position was that the maintenance of that was the responsibility of the county. Our only problem it's if the responsibility is to the homeowner, we want that clearly identified in the restrictive covenant that runs with the land so there is no question about who is responsible. The homeowners association does not want to be in a position where anybody can claim that we are responsible and web sued about it -- we might be sued about it. I would assume the county would be concerned about that, also.
>> let me ask that question right now. Anna, are we going to have any responsibility for --
>> we do not. Typically it would either be if it's a common area lot, it would be the homeowners association. If it's private property it would be the property owner.
>> where is it in this case?
>> on a private lot it would be the property owner.
>> our objective is to have that clearly identified to the property owner when he purchases the property. The only way we know of doing that is to have a restrictive covenant that the property owner will be in receipt of as part of the title search of the property
>> [multiple voices] that way he can understand that is the situation.
>> do you all have a problem identifying that y'all will have to let whoever purchases that know that they are responsible for it?
>> I certainly have no problem. My name is terry metheny. I certainly have no problem, I don't know what a restrictive covenant entails. Certainly I have no problem with -- I expected that the owner would care about whether or not the drainage is backing up into their house or not. I would expect that is what we would have happened. Certainly I don't know if that entails needing to have some kind of a writing that goes along with the sale contract or whatever. But I would expect that to would be the case.
>> well, I would expect that to be clearly delineated, I mean, because obviously that, I mean, what you expect people to know that they should do we've had too many times when people come down and why didn't somebody tell us that. The way you tell them either get in the covenant or clearly spell out that that is something that has to happen. Okay.
>> well, is there any question about it being on private property?
>> no.
>> it's clearly on private property.
>> not county right-of-way.
>> it's not county right-of-way.
>> typically we would look to the property owner.
>> I think part of the -- I think part of that pipe may be in the city of Austin right-of-way. I think it probably is in the city of Austin right-of-way. One of the problems that we have with the drawings provided by the developer for the house plans is that they did not clearly identify the drainage easement or the city of Austin right-of-way on those drawings.
>> okay. I would suggest that we talk next about the trails issue and mr. King is prepared to talk about that.
>> do we -- are we together on the drainage pipe situation? Looks like the main concern is that we clearly identify whose responsibility it is. Since I致e been here if it's on private property it would be the private property owner. If it were a county right-of-way it would be Travis County's responsibility.
>> this whole process is new to us. I知 the realtor, terry is the invest store and martha is the engineer who designed the thing. If that's the case, absolutely yes. However we would convey to the new property owner that if this thing were to back up, I mean, it's basically their lot. That it's their issue.
>> am I right, joe, has that been the position since last 18, 19 years. Probably before that. Legally.
>> I would like to -- direct you to page 14 that shows a partial topographiccal of the property. You can see it's quite a steep lot. If there was any kind of backup it seems likely that it's going to still go downhill. It's not ever going to back up into the street because the -- because of the cleanouts and whatnot that you have along the way. At worst it's would overflow and back on to the driveway and downhill. It's quite steep.
>> does this mean that there's a commitment to put this into a restrictive covenant?
>> I didn't hear that. Is that the best way to do this?
>> it's my understanding that is the best way and most effective way to do this kind of thing.
>> you understand fact it's not particularly restrictive because it is the law.
>> pardon me?
>> it's not particularly restrictive because it is the current law.
>> just clarifies to any purchasing homeowner that this is a little bit of an unusual feature in the property because I believe this is the only place in our subdivision where this situation exists.
>> I would actually like to point out that mr. Torgrimson is incorrect. There's another cul de sac one over called culpepper cove that exactly has the same situation where they have a 50-foot by 120-foot I believe easements and the original developer put in an underground pipe on it very similar to what we have done. I think it's done exactly the same way that ours will end up being.
>> is that one, peter, to your knowledge delineated as to what has to take place in the event that something happens?
>> I知 not aware that that pipe is there. I知 not aware that it's the same construction as this particular situation. That's something that we would have to check out.
>> is there an agreement for put appropriate language in the restrictive covenant?
>> I知 okay with that. I will have to figure out how that works. But I have no problem. I don't think a homeowner would have a problem with that as well. So ...
>> okay. Who is coming for the next issue.
>> king is going to speak about trails.
>> before we talk about trails, anna, what would be our position if we have competing -- competing -- contrasting opinions from engineers? I mean because it sounds like -- that their engineer may not agree with -- with the homeowner's engineer. Is that -- is that correct?
>> yes.
>> and so you --
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> way overdesigned because -- 18. Rcp. Calculations that it's -- that it's a lot bigger pipe than would actually be necessary. That's fine. It's already in the ground, I don't feel like that there's going to be any sort of drainage problems. So --
>> do -- did we viewing area phi that. -- verify that. Given the fact that you have difference of opinions regarding something like this. Where would we weigh in on that?
>> I would say when an application is submitted we review the drainage associated with that. We did in this case. Sometimes we have varying opinions on the merits of assertations made by engineers on various applications. But our engineers reviewed it and they felt comfortable with it. So they recommended its approval.
>> okay.
>> trails, by way of introduction, my name is ed king. I知 a 20 year residents of long canyon. Currently president of phase 1 board of directors. I would like to talk to you about the frill access rights vote -- trail access rights via drainage easements, some of the history and background that is relevant to this particular case. First of all, we have been advised by two separate lawyers that the drainage -- on forgive me, I知 recovering from a bit of a flu here. We have been advised by two separate lawyers that the drainage and conservation easements are governed by both the deed restrictions and the city and council regulations. Permission from one is not necessarily binding on the other. According to the advice we have. It's an unfortunate situation, but that's the way we understand it. To avoid further legal arguments in the future, it would seem that the community and the county should do their best to work together to arrive at a resolution to the open issues in this project. Number two, the deed restrictions which have been of public record for many years and clearly well known to the developers. Clearly provide authority over drainage and conservation easements to the community. Here is what is said in these deed restrictions both in phase 1 and phase 2, so that is somewhat immaterial and this language also appears in the relation to the conservation easements. It stailghts there shall be no development, improvements or structures temporary or permanent in any drainage easement except as approved in writing by the a.c.c. Or the association as the situation requires. By refusing to agree to a deed restriction which preserves trail access and runs with the property the developer so far has refused to abide by the conditions specified in the conditional approval initially offered by the situation. That is they said they would preserve the trail access right, but absolutely refuse to make it binding. Obviously they are building a spec out here, going to sell it as soon as they can. Their original agreement after refusing to make it a deed restriction is purely hog wash. Instead the developer proceeded to tear up a long concrete -- we are -- drainage and conservation easements without proper prior consultation with the association as to the boundaries or regulations thereof. It was contemplated in the original foundation documents for the whole subdivisions. Was original laid out by the originaller developer themselves. The drainage easements have continually been used for this purpose throughout the history of the community, to my knowledge, the specific trail which uses the drainage easement that we're talking about today, has it's only western access to the subdivision streets as its only access was built and paid for by the community. It been posted and continuously maintained by the community for more than the last 15 years. It has -- it has painted signs at both ends of it. It's -- it's clearly identifiable and used regularly by the community members. Both phase 2 and phase 1. Without this western outlet the trail would be dead ended and its value to the community would be substantially curtailed. By ignoring the restrictions on the property when it was purchased, the developer now wants to build part of its house on the drainage easements and use the rest as a driveway. Has yet to formally ask for variances to the deed restrictions to accommodate any of these intentions. The community has met with the developers on several occasions and was given to understand that the developers would request a further postponement of this hearing in order to allow additional time for discussions of these variances. The community is preparing a detailed settlement proposal to the developers and would like the time to sit down and discuss that with them before any action is taken by this court. In view of the above, we urge you not to grant this request for the drainage easement vacation and most certainly not until the trail is protected by a recorded restrictive covenant that applies -- that has some meaning to the next owner of the property, which may be a few months from now for all we know. To prevent substantial damage to the community as a whole, any vacation of this easement must stimulate protection of the trail along the property line from the street to the conservation easement. I want to thank you for your understanding and help in protecting the property rights of the 350 families in long canyon. Thank you.
>> so today your request is that the trail that's there be left.
>> be left, yes.
>> be left alone.
>> yes.
>> and --
>> we're not asking for anything new.
>> the developer's position on that specific request is what?
>> that specific case? That specific case I will address by saying that as mr. King pointed out, this is a three phased subdivision that began 25 years ago. The intent was that all of the phases would be the same and all have deeded trails in them. Only phase 1 had deeded trails and they were -- and they were specifically placed in places where there were drainage easements down to the back of the property and then along conservation easements. All right? There are no trails deeded in phase 2 or 3 and we are building in phase 2.
>> I知 sorry. To clarify, is it your position that they have no right to this trail access?
>> it is my position that they have no right to be tromping on my property. There is no trail access, there are no trails and if we did grant a -- a deeded easement for a trail down the side of our property line, it would simply go down to the back of our property around then nowhere because there are no deeded trail easements along the back of the properties in the conservation easement.
>> laying aside deeded trails, you have been there, you have lived in the neighborhood for how long? Both of you?
>> I used to live in the neighborhood. I moved out about a year ago. I was a member and am a member of the board myself.
>> is it true that there is currently a trail and that it is in use and has been for some time.
>> I will tell you that I was on a committee when I was on the phase 3 board that was trying to take the phase 2 and 3, 2 and 3 board, combine them with the phase 1 board. The issue has always been that phase 1 has trails, phase 2 and 3 does not have trails and phase 1 was -- if I remember right, was even taking the position that only phase 1 people can walk on phase 1 trails, you don't have access to our trails.
>> my question is.
>> I知 sorry.
>> is there a trail on the side of the property that's been in continuous use?
>> there were pieces -- the four by four stuck in the ground that has a green paint on there.
>> indicating a trail.
>> I -- indicating that it was I guess yes, I guess it was indicating that someone thought there was a trail there. And there's not.
>> people have used that as access to a trail.
>> I have no knowledge of that.
>> in addition, at the end of the topical easement that was there, the big concrete slab where water had run for many years, it was -- the dirt erode so it's rock, it would have been very challenging to do much of anything at the end of that. When we went out and looked at the lot before terry purchased the lot, I mean, it was -- it would be rough terrain. There was no evidence. Trees were not cut down. There was no path. There's nothing that would indicate okay there are people going down this trail. I don't know how many hours I have spent out at that lot since in the year or year and a half that he's owned it, I can tell you there have never been people walking back there.
>> there is agreement there is a deed trail if phase 1.
>> yes.
>> the disagreement is whether there's a deeded trail in phases 2 and 3.
>> yoblg there's a disagreement. I don't believe there's a disagreement. There are no deeded trails.
>> your argument is this is not one of the deeded trails in phase 1.
>> I also want to have this issue, if you read the community bulletin boards, there's an issue directly across from mr. Peter torgrimson's house where phase 1 is trying to extend their trail into phase 2 and the homeowners put you the a sign that says stay off my property. It's not just this issue. I think that they are trying to use our issues here to encroach upon my property rights.
>> okay. Mr. King you said your lawyers have told you that there's a deeded trail in phases 2 and 3, also.
>> no, I have not said that. As a matter of fact none of the trails in phase 1 are deeded. There's no recorded deed with a survey map showing trails in any part of the subdivision. However --
>> language about no structures except as appear approved in writing only apply to phase 1?
>> no. That applies, that language is in the deed restrictions, the dccr's of both phases, all three phases I believe.
>> okay.
>> but --
>> so as to phases 2 and 3, the developer's intention really is to construct over what -- what mr. King says has been a trail.
>> no, sir.
>> all right. Where's the disagreement on a trail in phase 2?
>> > if the easement, 10 feet were vacated, if it were 15 feet, I believe that the other entry points to the trails in phase 1, the trails that exist, I believe those, according to terry, are -- are actually about 10 feet wide at the entry points and are divided I think in many cases, some on one lot and part of the footage on the lot next door.
>> what, if anything, are you -- are you willing to do about a trail in phase 2.
>> we have -- we as Austin owners signedthe letter on paget indicates that we will allow people to walk down that easement along there to, attached to the back of the property and from there go where they want to. As owners we have said we will allow that.
>> you don't want it as a covenant applying to nice future homeowner.
>> that's correct, ma'am.
>> hum.
>> we believe that would be -- that would be if there were real trails back there that hooked into I think that would be a benefit, if it's just a 10-foot section from the front right property to the back right property, it seems to be an -- a --
>> a liability.
>> > if someone were to fall down the future homeowner would have that liability that someone got hurt on their land.
>> is that true.
>> may I address some of these questions.
>> in just a moment.
>> if someone fell, they would have liability, is that the question?
>> homeowner.
>> I think the property owners have -- have certain duties as far as -- as liability on their properties.
>> yes, mr. King.
>> first of all the liability questions, the use of the trails, the trails have been in continuous use for essentially the 20 years, nature trails in the subdivision, they've always been considered in the initial advertising for the subdivision as a plus, an increased land value. There is a total of probably five miles of these trails within the subdivision that was maintained by phase 1. Primarily. But -- but I want to say that the -- that the use of these trails in phase 1 is limited to -- to phase 1 residents and their guests and if anybody in phase 2 has indicated the -- the desire to use them, we -- we have an open door policy as far as that's concerned. As for the use of this specific trail, I can supply and do of course affidavits from dozens of people that use that trail and have used it, contrary to what's been represented here. I use it myself probably once or twice a week depending on my schedule. And I walk the whole four or five miles of those trails. Including this one. Without that outlet, it's a dead ended thing that really decreases the value of that trail that was built by community funds originally. And has been in use and very well advertised and posted, it's shown on our website as an existing trail just like every other trail in the subdivision. Again, I want to emphasize.
>> existing trail owned by whom.
>> beg your pardon?
>> existing trail owned by whom?
>> the --
>> [multiple voices]
>> on private property.
>> the point is that basically all of the trails in the subdivisions are on private property. None of the trails contrary to what was represented here are deeded. There is no particular map as I said earlier or anything of the sort to indicate that the trail is there. There are drawings made original by the original development basically without any survey information and those are not recorded. Anywhere that I have ever seen. So I --
>> your position is that through common continual use over a number of years, you all have a -- a property right in accessing this -- this trail.
>> absolutely.
>> it's not that you own the property. It's that you have through continual usage, kind of an adverse position right to access this property.
>> there is certainly that aspect of it and in addition to that throughout the deed restrictions of both phases, phase 1 and phase 2, the intention of the original developer is very clear of the the tracts that he laid in the restrictions are very clear that it was intended for those trails to be there. That he didn't follow up and -- and survey them and record them as a -- as in the deed his -- is something that we have no power to control over. At this time.
>> ed, let me -- let me cut to the chase here. Y'all are smart people. Both sides. The bored and the people wanting -- the board and the pep wanting to do this. Do you think that the things that you are going to request of these folks are doable things that will not stop them from being able to build and to go forward with trying to sell the home? Do you think that you all -- you're not trying to gotcha on this deal.
>> no.
>> let's face it, that's the spot that you are going to put us in. Nobody wants to do that to anyone. But I will say to the applicant, I mean,, you know, you got pretty strong resistance here given the fact, I mean, being dwellers out there as well. You know seems like the intent of the people that live in the long canyon area with restrictions and whatever, that there is at least the understanding that these things are needed and wanted. Do you all think that you can comply with the list of what the board is going to be able to give you? Because if you can, well then that's how we need to move forward, you know, with this thing. I mean I want you to be able to do what you are wanting to do, but I certainly would like sign-off on the board, if you do these things that we can get all right with it.
>> I don't know that I understand even if -- how does it make a difference if it's a 15-foot section that accesses the trail versus a 25-foot section.
>> you are saying the 15-foot section can only be axed while you own it, after that all bets are off.
>> that would be the same with the 25-foot that stands now. He owns that section. All that I知 saying is I don't understand what one has to do with the vacation of the 10-foot of easement.
>> now, bearing in mind that really this is a dispute between the hoa and the homeowner that actually we don't have a dog in this hunt in reality. But laying that aside and in an attempt to aide in getting to a yes, for both of you all, I am looking at the letter that you provided to us, page 4, I知 assuming that you provided this letter because you are saying that you are comply go with these three conditions. Is that what the intent in including the letter was?
>> this letter came about as part of a discussion we had with them where we have started the construction in the drainage easement and it was a misunderstanding on our parts whether or not we had permission to based upon the plat that we had supplied them where we showed where we wanted a a house and a driveway, it was more of a clarification of yes we understand that homeowners association has absolute authority to grant the rights for construction in a drainage easement and to get the approval to have our driveway going to be put this that drainage easement that -- that these were concessions that we made to get that.
>> so you included this letter because you are conceding to these three conditions.
>> yes.
>> because it strikes me that the first condition the use of the drainage easement as an access path to the trail system shall remain a permitted use. You are reading that as only as it applies to you. Whereas it appears that they intended it to be as it applies to any homeowner you or future.
>> ms. Eckhardt, I believe that -- I believe that can only apply to me.
>> well then let me move to the second one, appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls shall be installed and maintained. Mow are you suggesting that maintained only applies to you?
>> I believe it was during the construction process, that would be true.
>> this is --
>> three, maintenance of erosion and sedimentation controls shall comply. That also only applies to you these conditions are --
>> I believe those last two -- I believe those last two were in the construction process.
>> only to the construction process? Okay. Therefore yes to your answer.
>> okay. So it's your feeling that because you are going to comply with these three -- I知 just curious -- well, I値l leave it at that.
>> yes, ma'am. Commissioner, I also want to point out that before we started any work at all, on page 3, we had a conditional approval of what it was we wanted to do, a complain approval came from the submittal of the site plan showing the house and driveway as well as a drainage plan that 7 ms.
>> [indiscernible] prepared, we felt like we got approval for that, that was approval from the homeowners association to allow the driveway and the drainage easement. It seems to us that the trail access easement from -- that mr. King from phase 1 was not a member of the phase 2 neighborhood, but is a member of the long canyon neighborhood became the issue then and I feel like we're being a little bit unduly coerced to -- to -- on -- on issues here that do not pertain to the building process that we are trying to get here.
>> yes, sir.
>> my name is peter torgrimson, president of the phase 1 and 2 homeowners association. I generated this letter of September 20th. And we actually only received their acknowledgment of agreeing to these conditions the day after our December 19th meeting with the applicant pursuant to your instructions from the December 18th Commissioners court hearing. Our position is that they have requested the permission to build a driveway over the drainage easement and we view that as pretty significant and the conditions we put forth in this letter we believed to be significant conditions. Our position is that they basically are reneging on this commitment. They committed that in exchange for the ability to build a driveway across the drainage easement that these do these three things. Our position is that they have done none of these three things. The trail system we certainly expected to be put into place in perpetuity because the driveway is going to be put in place basically in perpetuity. And a right to use the trail between the time that they can finish the construction process during which we wouldn't have very good trail access and the time they sell the property is certainly not a very substantial commitment on their part. And they have since stated here today that there are no trail rides in their opinion on that property, even though they have agreed in this approval and by -- by continuing with the construction process they have accepted these conditions whether or not they -- they only subsequently agreed to them officially. The second issue is that they have not maintained the erosion controls appropriately. I have an affidavit here prepared by water quality control engineer, I will pass that out as soon as I finish testimony, to testifying to the fact that they have not maintained the erosion controls appropriately. He has brought this to their attention. They said oh, we will fix that right away. They still have not complied with that.
>> let me ask a question on that. I have been kind of quiet this morning. I normally talk a lot. If a homeowner -- I guess I need to ask legal this. Here you have a homeowners association and of course I always have imagined that -- that always thought that homeowners association had some status I guess in what happens within the boundaries of the homeowners association. It appears that we're at -- it appears, I don't really know, that there is a an impasse here, it appears, I say appear, there is no room for negotiations, further negotiations on this particular item. That's the way it appears. Now I guess my question is this -- is there room for negotiation between the applicant, future negotiations between the applicant and also the homeowners association? I知 posing the question to y'all because I知 hearing various sides, various arguments, just appears that there is -- has been a collision here this morning. Which I thought a lot of these things have been resolved from the last meeting that we had on this item. The question is to both of you. Predict and also the homeowners association residents. Are we at an impasse, if not are there room for negotiations on this particular issue.
>> I can address that directly. The homeowners association from the beginning has been on a path we are going to put together an agreement here so these people can build a house. I mean our position is very straightforward. People own property, they have the right to develop that property. The objective of the homeowners association is that they follow the rules that are going to -- that have been established for developing the property. I think that is a very clear kind of thing. The situation that we have is we met with the owners last Wednesday night. We had a frank discussion about the thing. And -- there's some things that they have done, committed to verbally that we -- that we were pleased with. They verbally agreed they would remove the septic system from the conservation easement and put it somewhere else, restore the property. We like that. That's not the basis of the complete agreement, though. There's many other issues that we need to work out --
>> I hear what you're saying. But my question is, as I stated earlier, is are you in an impasse setting or is there room for continued negotiation to between the applicant and homeowner.
>> I believe there's plenty of room left. I mean what we perceived on Wednesday afternoon, Wednesday night and Thursday evening in an e-mail from terry that we had a proposal for going forward on this thing. Some things that we frankly were not in agreement with on that and we are in the process even now there's a draft that's circulating among ourselves of a proposed settlement agreement to get resolution of these things so that the property owner can move ahead with the development. We certainly believe has that's there's room for making an agreement on this. We certainly are working toward that purpose. We are not -- we don't have time and energy to try to just out of meanness or whatever to try to prevent a homeowner from building a home on the property. The objective of the homeowners association is to get, if somebody wants to develop a house on the property they should be able to develop a house on the property. What we are not signing up for is to accept whatever presentations are made by the developer as being what we should do and accepting them without a critical eye and protecting the homeowners association and the community. That's basically where we stand. There's -- there's many issues that need to be worked out and I expect we can do that.
>> I understand. You answered my question about room that may be available for continued negotiation to make sure that we get out of this impasse that appeared this morning. The question now, the applicant the same question as I possessed to the homeowners association association.
>> we were here one month ago to get the vacation of the 10 feet. We've had two meetings since then. We have yet to have the proposal come back from the neighborhood saying these are the things that we want you to do.
>> my question, though, is to you -- to you is I stated to them, is there room to negotiate to -- to overcome this appearance of an impasse. That's what my question is.
>> we have every intention of continuing the meetings once the vacation of the easement occurs. We don't see any of these items as impacting the vacation of the 10-foot of the easement. In order to build the house we have a conditional approval. They still have to approve the septic system, the mailbox, several other things. We have every intention of working with them. The issue now is there's a lot of money tied up so far, interim interest has been ticking for a month. Last time we said that's a big concern with putting it off. We put it off to the next meeting and we are asked to put it off again.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> the association says if you do that you kind of take away the leverage. And they don't want that. I don't want them to necessarily have, I don't want you all put in a spot where, you know, we probably don't have anything to work with here. Right now you do. You have a court that , you know we are very inclined to take staff's recommendation to do the easement. Go ahead and spend, if it's we had and Thursday you say you have the ability to do, bring it back next week where you all can sign off and say we can do these things. Unless you all present something next week that says this kills our deal, we cannot do this, then I may change my mind, at least for me, as to where I go with this thing. But sounds to me like they are willing to give you all a path by which to get this thing off of high center and let us move forward. Isn't that the case?
>> yeah.
>> I知 looking at this. Just so I can can understand the narrative better, are we talking about an ease the on this side of the driveway?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> I don't want what she is talking about.
>> the current path goes right alock the driveway, right on the edge of the property down to the conservation easement down here.
>> so the current design still allows for 15 feet on the far side. Not that y'all are conceding to it, but if you did, there is an additional 15 feet.
>> the option is there whether 25 feet or 15, the same option there with regard to feg shating or if there were a decision played to grant and assess to a trail.
>> and the trail goes where? Is that the trail--
>> not there yet.
>> there is no trail.
>> there is no trail.
>> yeah, there is no trail.
>> there is a trail.
>> has been for the last 15 years.
>> on the back there is.
>> absolutely. Contrary to the information that was given you.
>> when I pull out this one.
>> I can walk any of you around it.
>> just show me where the trail is so I can roughly know what we're talking about.
>> it's been on the site for several years on the trail system.
>> so the house we're speaking of is?
>> let me get this. Comes right out.
>> the yellow trail.
>> yeah. This yellow trail.
>> uh-huh.
>> comes right out here. This is only access to this whole end of it.
>> I see. Okay.
>> as I say, this has been on the website for years. The trail has been there and been marked.
>> so there is a trail.
>> absolutely.
>> I disagree.
>> walked this a hundred times.
>> how can one person disagree that there's a trail.
>> came, I値l make copies for everybody else.
>> wow.
>> Commissioner eckhardt, I壇 like you to note that there are a couple of trails that seem to start somewhere and dead end. They dead end from phase one into phase two where they have not decided to hack away through that person's property to a street.
>> a couple? There may be one.
>> okay.
>> in this case, this particular trail doesn't, it actually has an designated terminus.
>> was not on there when I was a resident of the neighborhood. It's there now.
>> it's been several years since we modernized the website and put that on.
>> if you think there is an avenue by which we can get off of dead center here, I wouldn't know why you wouldn't go and have the Wednesday and Thursday meeting and come back and say we know what we have to do. Unless you think there is something that you're going to be asked that is going to prohibit you from doing this project. There's got to be that feeling. Or you'd say fine, we'll see you next week and you all sign off on it.
>> Commissioner Daugherty I think it also depends upon the neighboring properties allowing a deeding of a trail on their property as well, else a deeding of a trail on this property is worthless. I think unless you have a fully deeded trail that connects back from phase 2 into phase 1 that involves this lot as well as the one or two, I can't remember, next to it. If you and next that into our yellow trail--annex that into our yellow trail, it requires a deed on this property as well as at least the one next to it before it connects back up to a trail in phase one.
>> as terry mentioned, on our website right now, the neighborhood website, it shows on the bulletin board, someone asked the question, I was on a trail and there was a note posted saying stay off the property, no trespassing. They said how can this be, how can I not use the trail? The answer from the person in phase one who handles the trail is that's their private property they have the right. And if there's a sign, though we are hopeful they will allow us to use that, if they don't want you on their property, then stay away present that property. Use the trails in phase 1. It's on the neighborhood website right now.
>> is there an advantage to the owner of this particular home in having a trail system?
>> not--
>> the owner of this home would still have access to walk out anywhere on their property back to the conservation easement and then walk from it to any fabing property if they had neighboring property owner's permission if they wanted to. I say no.
>> what they would have, if there is a deeded access, what our fear is, is we're signing off on a liability for a future home owner.
>> then you all can get together in regard to resolving the issue of liability so that you can have what I would think would be an attribute for both the neighborhood and the home owner. If it's liability that is the sticking point, can you all get together on skinning that cat?
>> we're not an attorney. I guess if the neighborhood is willing to say that they will take the liability, fan there's a way to take that liability from the future home owner, then that would certainly be something that we could think about.
>> how about just deeding the sliver and just saying, we're going to deed it over here. And this is not part of this acreage. Go to the association and say okay, fine, you've got that. The liability does rest probably just like any other trail or whatever. You have a sign, walk at your own risk, this or that, so that you're protected. Go ahead and take it off so you all don't even have to disclose that to a home owner. I mean, take it and sliver it off and say this is not really part of your tract. This is something that we've deeded so that you don't have an issue.
>> we would also have to look with the architect. It's a pie shape lot and narrow at the front.
>> it's ten feet continuous. Whether it's pie shape at the or not it's a continuous strip.
>> part of the reason we had to have this was because the 25 foot--exactly.
>> you design the driveway and there's still 15 foot.
>> I don't think you can likely legally give that land over to the neighborhood and then still have a driveway on the neighborhood's, I don't know.
>> because it's set back?
>> that may be something you can say let's work with had a. I知 hearing it's not like we're trying to keep from you doing it. It's pretty obvious to me that there are some things that have happened with this project that's really irritated, you know, one has irritated the other. That is obviously going on here as well. But let's work towards resolution. I think that we can work towards resolution with this thing. And there are probably a couple ways to do it. I want to get it over in the next week because I understand interim. So does everybody else.
>> let me ask this question. The trail that exists now, the back side, any portion of that trail has ownership? Does anyone own it or is it just something that exists and people have just basically been using it?
>> the trails throughout the subdivision are located within the conservation easements. This was contemplated in the deed restrictions when the whole thing was platted.
>> exactly.
>> it wasn't surveyed. There is no separate deed for trails any place in either subdivision. The homeowners understand if they read the dccr's, the original nownfoundation documents and the governing document for this sub division, that those trails can be placed in the con vakes easement and the trainage easements.
>> okay.
>> the intentions of that are throughout the organization documents of the sub division.
>> okay. That answers my question. Again, I知 like Commissioner Daugherty. We need to come up with some type of resolution on this.
>> and a time frame.
>> pardon me?
>> and a time frame would be nice too.
>> yeah. Hopefully we can break the impasse that's been presented, the appearance.
>> I just still don't understand that, what we're agreeing to, in order to give them leverage, we're not going to grant the vacation of the ten feet of the 25-foot ease am because it might take leverage away from them. We can't build a house without the home owner association and the acc signing over. They have signed off on a portion. They have to sign off on the rest. You can't do anything else. Whether a house gets built or doesn't get built, the vacation of 10 feet of a 25-foot ease am, I just, I知 not an understanding how, we don't want to give the vacation of ten feet of the 25-foot of the easement because it may take away some of their negotiating power.
>> there's clearly some public interest in access to green space contemplated on the conservation easement. I hear you. I know it's frustrating for you. But there has been a case made for public interest in access to green space that was apparently contemplated as being within the conservation easement.
>> andy, if there is something that is asked of you that I personally find abhorent that I think is ridiculous, I値l let that be known next week. I think that unfortunately, somebody has leverage when you have conflicting, you know, viewpoints. I think that you can work this thing out. If you come next week and you say here is something that we were asked that you wouldn't do this if you were asked, and in my opinion that it really kills your deal, then I probably will have some difference of opinion with that. But I知 getting the impression that there is, there's certainly a way to skin this cat. And I certainly will be ready to get it over with next Thursday. I mean, I know that you have said, well, we've said that twice. But I wish it wouldn't have been December 19 because I might have brought you back the next day. Unfortunately, that would have been the 26th and nobody would have showed up.
>> I知 going to make a statement on the question of the time value of money and how we need to move smartly on this process has been brought forward. With your permission I would like to solicit the testimony of our city of Austin coordinator about schedule issues issues relative to the city of Austin. Would that be acceptable?
>> good morning, my name is carol torgrimson. I致e been pointed to represent them to various governmental agencies including text dot. Commissioner Daugherty and I have had conversations about text --tex dot issues and the stirn. I have been in contact with many city of Austin staff people over this particular case. City of Austin is not very happy with this case. I壇 be happy to put words in their mouth here. Frankly, I think there's been some effort the the play the city against the county and the home owners association. I知 hoping what will happen in the next week is that the homeowners's association and the applicant will be able to sit down and work out some written agreements. I知 afraid it's going to have to be in writing. Verbal agreements have fallen by the wayside, have not been honored. I do think it's important that you understand that the time value of this application before you has sort of been maybe slightly misrepresented. There is no active building permit on this property. It expired. And the supervisor of that department inform me that they will have to file for a new building permit. So it isn't like they could take this drainage easement vacation today and go into the city of Austin and get a building permit and go forward. They really can't go forward at this point until they reply for a building permit. There were several issues with that building permit besides those that would be resolved by the drainage easement vacation. So I do believe that there is time for another week postponement to give the applicant and the home owner association time to negotiate because they really can't go forward. In fact, one of the staff members dealing with this building permit told me that they are considering red tagging this property because there's been some construction activity that's taken place without a permit. So if you can find in it your hard to postpone this, I do believe it would be in everyone's best interest, both the applicant's and the homeowners association. I don't believe the timeliness will be affected. Thank you.
>> may I say something to that?
>> yes, sir.
>> the builder got a permit to put the septic system on and the septic system was approved by the county. He says there's a box that you check and you pay an extra $10 to have the county research and make sure there are no strange easements hidden. He says he check the box and he has the piece of paper to show it we didn't intentionally try to put mitt a wrong spot. That is why he agreed to move it. Just so we're clear, it was completely approved through the county and the final product has been approved. The drainage easement we work with the county and city and have gotten permits for everything we've done. The reason this is important is because the plan we submitted to the home owner's association originally shows the house being billed up to the 15 feet which we can't have a house built in the drainage easement. All along we've known. So with the vacation of the easement, plans have already been approved to appoint, but there's an issue with regard to the height. If the house is moved down a hill over to the 10 feet, it goes down a hill and it makes the bottom corner significantly further from the highest point. So we would have an issue with the height. I just want to be clear, though. It isn't like we've been sneaking out doing construction or the builder has. He is not here to defend himself but had a is not the case. The drainage ease am was taken through the whole process and permitted and approved and all that stuff that's supposed object done as was the septic. Mterms of the building approval of the plan, the thing that we are stuck on is the vacation of the 10 feet so that we will be within the height requirement. I just want to have clean air the ty.
>> there are three or four legal issues that have surfaced today. The if this is back on the court's agenda next Tuesday as suggested, seems to me that tnr needs to have in writing point of agreement and then points of disagreement. I think the court needs a document that sets forth the, relevant facts, policies underneath each one. And legal meads --needs an opportunity the review whatever the legal issues are. Otherwise I think next Tuesday we'll be in the same position we are in today. I don't know that our discussion was different than the one we had back in December, to be honest. If we are not careful, next week's discussion of an hour or so will be the same unless we come ready to, if there's not agreement, all we can do is take action on the issues as we see them. At some point we have to the reach that point. Seems to me that ought to be the next time it's on the agenda. So we're saying next week. But if it's clearly not ready, why have it on there.
>> you want tnr to find out whether or not it is going to be ready to put back on, we can do that Friday, right is this.
>> it will be on the agenda by Friday because we mail that out Thursday. What I知 suggesting, they have not reached agreement by Friday, then tnr needs to be notified and needs to put together a document that sets forth the issues. Today I guess we have a better an understanding than in December, I guess, but I don't know that the parties have come together any more. If there are points that the parties have reached agreement on, those are easy. The points of disagreement should be set forth for us. The different contentions, what staff sees the issues as being and policies, county policies that apply. And if there are legal questions then, you know, legal needs to get those I壇 say Friday. That gives you the weekend and Monday. When we start on Tuesday, if there's not agreement, then overthe weekend we'll know and go ahead and read the document and be in a position to take action on Tuesday. If Tuesday is our goal.
>> I think it's our goal if we can get it con. If not, we'll find out and know by Monday whether or not it's going to be ready for determination. This gentleman wanted to say something I think, judge.
>> yes, sir.
>> my name is bob kirkpatrick. Airman of the awhen we reviewed those plans n and looked at them there was a dotted line in which the house extended. There was no designation whatsoever of that dotted line being an easement, drainage or otherwise. The assumption was that it was a dotted line. So what. Our rules state that if you want to build inside of an easement, it would only be proper to submit a request to do so, and the approval would be granted in writing. There was no request submitted, no designation that it was an easement. Therefore, we approved them as they were.
>> you're with the cc you say?
>> architectural control committee. We approve plans.
>> for the hoa.
>> yes.
>> according to the builder when the plans were submitted, the engineers rendering for the drainage change was also submitted and they had a discussion about it. So again, it's 25-foot wide concrete thing that goes 150 feet deep. We weren't trying to hide it.
>> with a well-known trail that can only go on drainage easement it seems. It would seem like it's true that we did not actually have it written, drain easement, which was unintentional. It should have been clear to everyone living in the neighborhood.
>> previously you said it wasn't--
>> funny.
>> that was it.
>> but there was in addition to the plan, there was the drainage easement plan which clearly supplied with the fact that here is the drainage easement and here is what is changing on it. From the engineer.
>> I beg to differ. The drawing did show a pipe being installed there. However, again, it did not designate it was a drainage ease am. To take it a step further, before contacting us, if it was an easement, which they should have contacted and asked our permission, the concrete that was there was torn up. The ditch for the pipe was being dug before we knew anything about a pipe going in there. Work had already begub.
>> okay. Now, from today's discussion, I have learned that one issue is the drainage pipe, but there seems seems to be agreement on it. Or is there?
>> a difference in opinion
>> [multiple speakers]
>> the drainage pipe functions appropriately, that is satisfactory, I mean.
>> I thought the main point was what you call a financial issue and that was whether the pinepipe was the responsibility of the property owner or the city or county.
>> the physical presence of the pipe, I believe, is not particularly an issue. The financial aspect of any maintenance of that pipe most definitely is an issue.
>> there is not agreement then that the private property owner is responsible for the pipe if it's on private property?
>> he is, it appears from--my question--
>> my question, though, there seemed to be agreement on that 40 minutes ago.
>> yes.
>> we still have agreement on that.
>> yes.
>> put that in the document. The main point of disagreement are the trails.
>> yes. Relating to the drainage easement.
>> all right. So you all will try the reach agreement on those.
>> yes.
>> and what is the third issue? We're moving the septic system by design and constructionyes.
>> .
>> physically moving it.
>> I値l stay that honest to goodness, we did not catch that. It was completely unintentional. I would never have done that essentially to the con investigation easement. We are going to move it and replant it.
>> there is agreement on thatye.
>> what other area is there disagreement or do you just immediate to meet on trails?
>> there is something about the position of the house.
>> is is that a county matter?
>> that is strictly a homeowners association matter and city of Austin.
>> is there another item that the Commissioners court needs to be concerned about between now and next Tuesday.
>> I believe those are the only items that relate to the Commissioners court.
>> just the pipe, not the financial part because we'll make clear the private property owner is responsible for that.
>> right
>> [multiple speakers]
>> and the trails.
>> yes.
>> and we'll just bless all the other things that we don't have any jurisdiction over.
>> yes.
>> .
>> you all have more time on those. If we land on the trails next week, the more I hear about the trails, the more complicated the issue seems to be. If there is not reached--agreement reached, we really do need a piece of paper that shows what county policy applies and what the outstanding issues are and get those to legal before five o'clock on Friday. We all know lawyers work on the weekend. Plus they have Monday. So if we still have disagreement on Tuesday, then hopefully we'll be able to land on it. We get that done, I think that's about the best we can do. Appreciate you all coming back down today. Always good to see you.
>> thank you.
>> we'll have this on next Monday. Right? I mean next Tuesday is the 22nd.
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, January 16, 2008 3:08 PM