Travis County Commissioners Court
June 10, 2008
Item 39
Number 39 is to receive legal briefing and take appropriate action on request from residents of hazy hills ranchettes subdivisions for assistance regarding the spicewood stone commercial development, billboard advertising on state highway 71, noise and other alleged nuisances. We posted this as an executive session discussion; however, several residents contacted my office and asked for an opportunity to address Commissioners court on it, and I told them we would call it up at about 9:30 because if we follow our typical practice, there's no telling when we might reach executive session today. We did get e-mails from several residents regarding complaints that this item covers, and several residents are here today on it, so if you would like to come forth at this time, we would be more than happy to receive your comments. And if you would just give us your name.
>> good morning. My name is (indiscernible). I致e been here quite a few times before. I知 a resident of pedernales canyon ranch subdivision now for 37 years. And this is part of about --
>> can you just pull that microphone right there in front of you? Thank you.
>> where I live and where hazy hills ii is and about seven other old, old subdivisions out there are all part of the former pale face ranch. And these were broken up and filed as legal subdivisions in the late 60's most of them. And we all share basically the same deed restrictions with a little tweaking here and there. I致e worked very hard for 37 years to keep commercial activity out of my subdivision because I致e seen what even the legally positioned commercial activity in hazy hills I has done to the general appearance of the community. That's where the billboard cancer first started out there, in that its area of hazy hills -- in that little area of hazy hills I which had been a set aside for commercial when all these old subdivisions were created. But now because there is the prospect of making a buck and there are already billboards in the general area, persons who live in hazy hupp ii, or I should say own property in hazy hills ii, have made the election to did he fiesta carnival the deed restrictions and -- to defy the deed restrictions and convert that subdivision. What happens is when you change a deed restriction and nobody fights it, it kills it for the rest of the subdivision. So if commercial is permitted to be there on the highway where it's trying to be right now, it can also be in the interior and there will be no longer any legal way for you or me to fight it. And trust me, last August when we initiated these complaints, I e-mailed everyone, I sent faxes, I sent maps to each one of you and to escamilla and so did several of these people sitting in the audience. And we warned you or predicted that if this wasn't stopped, at that time it was just the stone company. That billboards Marching all the way to the county line would be next. Well, the March has started because those people saw that no one did anything about spicewood stone, so let's just keep moving. So this is the essential problem right here. Now, last year when I first talked to escamilla, he seemed to be very interested in prosecuting spicewood stone for deed violations. He told me that he had had many requests for prosecution of deed restriction violations, but that this was the first one that he had felt was really worthy of county intervention. And there were several reasons for that. For one, it's very egregious, it's dangerous to the health and safety. It has the public's interest at heart, not just that of the hazy hills ii subdivision. Because as I said, this is the first domino and the dominoes across the road where I live will fall too. We know that over there where I live there have already been five lots along the highway that have been purchased by speculators, and we even know what kind of stores they want to open because one of the first things they always do is call me and feel me out and see how much opposition there's going to be. Thus far we have intimidated them away from my side of the road, but I don't have any real intimidation factor on the other side of the road. I don't have any legal standing to sue in the case of hazy hills ii. Because only property owners -- by the terms of the deed restrictions themselves, only the property owners can do it. But there is a provision in state law that makes it possible for you to help these people out because these old subdivisions were set up in the 1969 through '71, almost all of them. And they hadn't even invented hoa's then. So none of them have anything like that. I would not ever advocate that the county step in and fund a deed restriction lawsuit on behalf of the subdivision which had an hoa with the powers to assess its own property owners and there by fund its own suit, but these people can't do anything. They're a very modest residential area for one thing, and it's just an unfair thing to ask one or two of those people in that small subdivision to do something that is truly for the benefit of the entire county. I think some of the other people out here are going to give you some specific details, but I know that someone from the health department came out just a few days ago and took a lot of photographs. One of the neighbors believes that he had been sent by the county attorney. That may or may not be correct, but redid see him taking photographs and we know his name and I have encountered him before with the health department. So the health department has an interest in this and they did issue one citation.
>> I believe it was the fire marshal.
>> the fire marshal also sent someone. The fire marshal sent someone to look at spicewood stone, and it's my understanding -- everything I知 saying here is here say, of course. It's my understanding that the owners of spicewood stone were told that they didn't have a certificate of occupancy and that -- for a commercial business. And in order to get that, they had to have a site plan which proved that they had access by the fire department through their property. The individual from its fire marshal's office indicated to one of the residents that in order to provide the access that he would require, it would cost spicewood stone a very large amount of money. And this might actually deter them from continuing. But I wouldn't count on that thaws can drag out forever. But the additional problems out there, we all know the traffic hazards of highway 71. I mean, that is certainly had plenty of publicity in the last year or so. And the reason why txdot finally did turn that area from reimers road down to 2322 into this planning commission situation where -- into this peculiar situation where you have two lanes inbound, one lane outbound and a lane in the middle that is supposed to be only for left turns, they did that because of all the fatalities going into my subdivision. There were two accidents and three fatalities and they were all caused by left turners. Now we have the situation where we have these dump trucks full of thousands and thousands of pounds of stone coming barreling down those extremely steep little roads in hazy hills to make their turns either left or right. They can't stay in their lane as they come off of hart hollow. So they're an accident truly waiting to happen. If they had a brake problem as they ran through that last turn inside from spanish dagger on to hart hollow, if they slip a little bit, there's a child care center there for them to hit. They could hit people loading and unloading. If people are there taking up a lane loading and unloading on this little narrow county road, which is so narrow it doesn't have a mark on it, doesn't have a stripe, I just can't repeat enough this is an accident waiting to happen. But I do think that the largest problem facing them is a fire hazard because you just heard the fire marshal talking about what just a spark can do. And when you've got a skip loader handling stone in a residential area of two acre lots where most of them now have knee high tall grass on them, you're asking for a huge disaster there. So we can certainly demonstrate -- if the criteria for county intervention is going to be health and safety, we do have health and safety problems here. So I ask that you consider this. I ask that you use what the state intended to be your alternative to dealing with this problem until such time as you can actually have a zoning power. You know, you really can't say there's nothing we can do about billboards when there is something you can do about some of these billboards. These billboards and commercial activities are in residential area, that's the end of the question right there. I will conclude there if there's anybody who wants to ask me a question.
>> ms. Autry, what attempts have the residents made to coordinate an effort and file lawsuits regarding these deed restrictions?
>> they have contacted -- maybe we should let them say, but as I said, this is all heresay. They have contacted several attorneys who have been referred to them by various organizations, and I was told that they had been given a quote of a 10,000-dollar retainer and that this was not enough -- probably would not be enough in the event there was litigation in court. And that's an amount of money that isn't possible for these people to raise because, as I said, they are of modest means. This is one of the more modest subdivisions out there in western Travis County.
>> and also in regard to the billboards, while I share a disdain for billboards in that scenic corridor, I知 struggling to find a health and safety angle on billboards.
>> well, it might not be necessary. If the billboard is on the spicewood stolen property, if the spicewood stolen property is filed against for violation of the tenant in the deed restrictions which says no commercial activity, that takes out the billboard too.
>> that's true.
>> and the other billboard, which everyone was afraid of, is being -- was scheduled to be put up, the clearing and the hole digging was apparently done by the same subcontractor at the corner of hart hollow and highway 71, and the ownership of that lot is in the name of hart hollow llc. I do not know where it truly -- where they truly reside, who the people really are. But I do know that they have an opportunity who has contacted one of the original developers. Would you believe he's still alive? And asked for permission to put up the billboard. Now, that shows he recognizes he's in violation of the deed restrictions. And of course, he was denied. So he sent another certified letter requesting a variance, and because of this, I suppose, they have not put up their billboard. The billboard already exists on the spicewood stolen property. So the billboard problem may really be just spicewood stone. But what is the most important thing to me, you know, there might be other ways to get this out, get this off the problem list, but if the county showed a willingness to in unique circumstances act, that would put forth a chilling effect that would stop the prospective violators across the way in my subdivision and on down the road. If the county does it once, I don't think they would ever have to do it again.
>> and what would you suggest be the criteria? You say a unique circumstance.
>> I tell you, I don't see any reason why you have to say carte blanche we're now going to prosecute all deed restrictions. That's not what the law says. You can pick and choose. You could even say that any lawsuit that was going to be done that related to deed restrictions would have to have the Commissioners court approval. You could do that. But I would say the criteria would be it's in the public interest, and this is in the public interest because we want to contain the billboards and we want to stop conversion of residential property into commercial because the next thing that happens in hazy hills is going to be worse than spicewood stone. It's probably going to be a koa type thing, which is going to bring lots and lots of small campers and lots and lots of transients and all that sort of thing. The reason why I say that is because it's already been attempted once. But there are lots of things that I can think of that will come into these areas out here that could be worse than even spicewood stone. But we need the chilling effect of the county's threat that they might act. It needs to be in the public interest, it needs to say we will not help out any subdivision that has an hoa and can assist money for this problem. It also has to have some effect on health, safety, etcetera. You can set your own rules and regulations, but when you get right down to it, virtually everything like this affects the health, the safety and well-being of those who live in the area. If you turn the front half of hazy hills ii into a commercial area, it is going to have a very dillter just effect on the rest of the 30 lots out that are there in that little subdivision, never mind what it's going to do across the highway. So this in its self is a health and safety effect. But I don't know where you came one that particular criteria that it needs to be health and safety, but it seems to me that was the whole point of having a residential subdivision protected from commercial. It was to begin with for the health, safety and property values, mental well-being of the subdivision. So it seems to me that it's always justified to protect something that would otherwise be regarded as a land use or zoning violation if you had that criteria.
>> we've had our lawyers working on this for the last few days. We have five seats available and five microphones. Other residents who would like to address us, please come forward. Ms. Autry has already don't us started.
>> this is ms. Katy bliss and she's the one who first initiated this protest way back in August of last year.
>> ms. Bliss?
>> well, I知 not exactly sure how to address you except that I知 not generally speaking a rabble rouser. I知 not a political activist. I知 just a mom who sits at home with my kids and goes to work and tries to make a decent living. And when it became appear rant to me that --
>> can you put the microphone closer to you?
>> okay. When two former residents' home that had a driveway from 71 and a home that had a driveway from one of the inside roads that had private residences on it, put a big old sign out front that said spicewood stone on it last summer, I was very surprised. And I walked around the lots that I generally do not walk around on because they're private property and it would be trespassing, but to see what going on. And this individual had pretty much torn up the entire three lots that join our internal road to 71 into one enormous area for heavy truck traffic and pallets of rocks and so forth. And was violation of our only residential neighborhood. So my children had to stop playing on the road because of the heavy truck traffic, and I decided that I needed to do something, and that's when I wrote my initial letter to spicewood stone informing them that they were in violation of the deed restrictions just in case they weren't aware. And copied that letter to date escamilla and all of you with my own letter of concern that was drafted with ms. Autry and a few of my other friends and neighbors in the area who had the same concerns about this driveway, the road traffic and people coming in and out of our neighborhood that were not my neighbors or friends of my neighbors, but strangers. So the dynamic of my neighborhood changed pretty radically at that moment. And as ms. Autry expressed, we were told that there might be something that the Commissioners could do because of the safety issues, particularly, of that traffic turning off of 71 where it's such a dangerous road. It's the very first thing to be changed on the highway. To have these huge trucks stopping and trying to turn into -- even if they didn't use our roads, which they finally did stop using our internal roads. Even to turn off of the highway it causes a backup of traffic behind them because there's not a proper turnout for that traffic so bring dump trucks into my subdivision. And I as a working mother can't afford to hire an attorney by myself to fight this person. And since numerous of my neighbors and the entire community, going all the way down the county park road and across the highway, down 71 toward the newer, higher end developments down there, and all of our area that were subdivided back in the day when there was just these simple guidelines that people would respect are all concerned because it will change the entire dynamic of that area. And I have yet to meet a single individual who had -- I mean, the -- I hit some indifference on a couple of people because they plan on flipping their property anyway, but for people like me who have been living out there 25 years and raised five children in that area, it's crushing. It's crushing to see my neighborhood do that. And now if this continues, the home that my children were raised in will probably be behind the parking lot of some cheesy diner or something. And that's not what I want to leave my children and that's not what I bought when I bought that property. I feel like my rights said this is residential, this is residential neighborhood when I brought that property. It should be upheld. It's filed in the courthouse, so I thought there might be some legal standing on the fact that it is for residents.
>> did you get a response from the business owner?
>> no.
>> to your letter?
>> I致e gotten absolutely no response from the business owner.
>> their response was sue us. Sue us was their response.
>> property rights are only for those who can afford to defend them.
>> that's the feeling I知 getting is that -- I understood the law to protect people like me who couldn't afford to buy what I needed, but that my basic rights would be protected.
>> okay. Yes?
>> yes. My name is glen watson and some of this is more or less -- she started working on this back in August. I failed to take enough interest, I admit, and I regret that. Anyway, I am now further -- I have now further investigated this person and it's been called to my attention that he doesn't have permits that are required by the fire marshal. This is obviously a man who is not working responsibly. That's a health hazard. He has a 2,000-gallon storage tank, diesel storage tank on his premises that he doesn't have a permit for through the fire marshal. He has several things he didn't put in place, which illustrates to me a lack of responsibility and it also makes a health hazard and a traffic hazard. I don't think he has the proper permit for a businesslike that to turn in. He doesn't have the kind of turn-in to accommodate that. Also, if there's businesses that come up, which we do know there are several, the plats there are so small to turn in to them, you will have a constant traffic -- we're constantly turning and people will try to go around us. It is a very -- highly dangerous road. In fact, I won't drive it anymore, that's how dangerous it's become.
>> will you repeat that first comment I think you made about capacity of a storage tank?
>> yes.
>> could you tell me the essence of that? Is it above ground? What type of fuel is being --
>> it's going to be a diesel. He doesn't have -- it's diesel.
>> diesel.
>> 2,000-gallon. Right now he has no fuel there, but he has a tank. He got the permit from tceq, mr. Larry king. I致e also called the lcra yesterday and they're looking into whether or not he was supposed to have a permit through them. I failed to write the lady's name. I know her last name. I can't remember her first name. Anyway, he's failed to get some permits required to operate a businesslike that, which to me illustrates a high irresponsibility in the first place. Even though the deed restrictions are a huge deal obviously, but you go around the whole system, that's red flags everywhere. I can't imagine how you couldn't see that as a red flag everywhere.
>> any other questions for ms. Watson?
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir?
>> my name is steve watson. I believe sybil, katy and gwen have made all the points I would like to make other than I would like to address the safety issues on 71. Where they placed that billboard is a very steep corner, very steep curve in the road, one lane. If you take your eyes off the road for one second to look at that billboard, you could cause death to someone -- to some innocent person on that road. It's very much a safety hazard. You take your eyes off the road for one second and you could cause an accident right there, just looking at that billboard. And that's basically all I have to say.
>> thanks.
>> thank you.
>> my name is marilyn bower, I知 a 25 year resident of hart holily, hazy hills, and I was going to bring up what steve just did about taking your eyes off the road to read these billboards. And another concern that wasn't brought up that I have is our water situation. We're on a community water well out there that was designed for a certain amount of residents. If they're doing commercial business and if they're -- which they do have meters to our water. We don't know how much of that water they're using, which is going to short us, which we have been known to run out of water. Or what they're dumping into the ground that is contaminating our water table below. That's all I can add. I agree with everything else that they've said.
>> thank you.
>> do you know what the capacity of the water supply is out there?
>> I知 not sure. I know we have paid recently to add another storage tank. As the subdivision grew our old storage tank was outdated and old, so a new one was put in.
>> okay.
>> that water system was in operation --
>> [ inaudible ]. Some entity from the state is actually operating --
>> eco resources.
>> is it in receivership from tceq?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic]. They're concerned about these individuals maintaining those trucks.
>> please come to the table.
>> we need to get you on a microphone.
>> tell them to come up and get on the mic.
>> I知 sorry. I was saying one of the uses of the water, which some of the residents have expressed to me is a problem, is I understand that some entity of txdot requires that those common carrier trucks be kept clean. So they wash those dump trucks, and that puts contamination into the soil and it also uses water which it's really an unjust use because they have had voluntary quotas on the water supply out there for years. That water system has been basically a disaster. And people who could afford to do so have put in their own wells, but there's still a lot of people on the water system who can't afford -- currently it would cost you seven or eight thousand dollars to put in your own well.
>> okay. Any questions for ms. Bower? Thank you.
>> I知 jean lowenthal. This is for what it's worth a bit of testimony. For what it's worth, the southwest Travis County growth dialogue, which cost a certain amount of money and certainly took a lot of people's time, came up with a set of recommendations for the highway 71 area, be and that included minimizing or eliminating as many billboards as possible. It also specified where commercial development should happen. I don't believe the hazy hills area was one of those. So my point is that we went through a lot of effort to try and create a plan for this area, and I understand that there's -- that the county does not have land use authority, but I do believe this the ability of effectiveness of mediating. This is not just a conflict between residents or property owners within a subdivision, this has a public factor to it as sybil pointed out. This is precedent setting. This is something that violates what we all agreed to as a community to the stakeholders in the growth dialogue. Even if the county does not have the technical capability or legal capability to intervene, it certainly -- individuals on the Commissioners court could take a mediating role, put pressure on the property owner who I知 sure is a business owner does not want to have the kind of negative publicity and the bad will that comes from going against the public interest. Thank you for your time.
>> thank you.
>> so how long has commercial stone been there now?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> August of '07. Anybody else? Why don't we chat with legal in executive session at this time? Is that good?
>> judge, hopefully we'll be able to do something legally with this, but I do want everybody to understand that this court took a very active role the year before last in the beautification of highway 71. I mean, we are on record 5-0 -- Commissioner eckhardt wasn't here at the time, but we worked with scenic Texas. We worked with the organizations in a went to the legislature -- the organizations that went to the legislature to try and get highway 71 classified as a no billboard -- even though we all know that there are -- I think sybil said, there are probably 30 or 40. I was out there yesterday and you're right, out there in your area there are probably 20 or 30 billboards. If you double the size, which most of them have the double sides, you're talking about a number of billboards. But we do understand the need and we have actively tried to work with being able to limit the billboards. Now, the billboards versus the commercialization of things out there, y'all know how difficult this is going to be with commercialization on highway 71 because most people are not going to consider highway 71 even though you may have it in your deed restrictions that it is not to be special commercial. And the unfortunate thing is that you're going to have probably some of your neighbors that wants to sell their property. I mean, when somebody comes up and wants to give somebody two, three, four dollars a square foot, but I知 just trying to paint the picture that even if we can get out and try to help you all do some of these things, let's all be aware that what we are about to open. We are about to open a can of worms here where some of the things that we are trying to do countywise, regulationwise, we may find that the legislature comes back at us and makes it much more difficult for us to get some of these things to work for y'all. Which I think that there are a number of these things that we need to try to help you with, but when we start getting into the fight of commercialization on highway 71, we are going to be in a major fight. And that's not to say that we shouldn't have some stance on the thing, but I do want you to know that this -- I think the billboard is what ignited this thing. At least that was the start of it. I guess the real start was the fact that the stone company was going in to begin with. If we can work and we can work towards some resolution out here, I think you will find this court ameanable to seeing what we can do. Obviously we will get some legal opinion once we go into executive session, but I didn't want you to leave here because I would imagine that some of you probably didn't know that two years ago that we have worked on this billboard legislation.
>> I have a question --
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> we need to get you on the mic, ma'am.
>> if that is indeed the case, my question is how does a person get a permit, which they did, I was told, back in September, to put that billboard up. How did they get that through the permitting process when there are restrictions on that property? How is it that the permitting process --
>> the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing and you're absolutely right.
>> the same with the tank.
>> and it does boil down to one has the property rights that one can afford to defend. And you're absolutely right, y'all have done what you can to preserve your property rights, and this is the first layer of government. The organization of citizens to protect their property rights. It is the first layer of government and y'all are exercising that first layer of government. Now you're asking for this layer of government to weigh in and help you, and I completely understand. We'll need to go into executive session to weigh all of our options because of course there is an issue that ms. Autry first brought the statute to me that I frankly was unaware existed. She brought it to me last August. And our discussion about what factors should come into play to exercise authority under this -- because it is a slippery slope that could turn into a circumstance where we're defending people who are mad because the fence is five feet closer than they want. But that's not what y'all are asking. And of course another option is to go to the legislature and prohibit billboards in certain sectors and on certain by ways. We haven't been successful at that for obvious reasons. The billboard industry has a lot of money.
>> the only person who has called me in reference to any of the information on the computer, I致e gotten one phone call and that was from a gentleman in dallas making sure I wasn't going to fight the billboard company.
>> and there is -- there's a very good state-wide lobbying organization right now called scenic Texas that's working on billboard issues as well. So we just need to go into executive session and find out all of our options. And ms. Autry has been tremendous at educating me --
>> I will say one more thing about the big boy billboard companies. Everybody is afraid of reagan and some of the really big billboard companies, but they're not the ones who are doing this. They don't want to be the bad guy who goes out and breaks deed restrictions. Both of these billboards are different little billboard companies that nobody ever heard of.
>> that's what I mean by left hand not knowing about the right hand.
>> and they take advantage and make as much money as the billboard that's legal -- maybe that's not the correct term, but not breaking the deed restrictions. All those billboards out there, Gerald, are all either on property that has no deed restrictions of any kind or else they're on property where a commercial area was delineated. That for travis settlement, for hazy hills ii, that was a commercial set aside, and those billboards are legal there. And other places down there like, say, jim jack's property on crawford road, there are no deed restrictions there that prohibit billboards. So those people, that's a billboard fight.
>> we've got a deed restriction fight.
>> and sybil, even when 'we were fighting over there trying to get the billboard legislation done, we were very careful as to say the people that have the billboards up, we're not trying to get to you take them down, we're just trying to get a situation where you can't add billboards. And we all thought because you had a unanimous Commissioners court, I think that you had a unanimous Travis County delegation. You had a state representative from outside much our area, that being patrick rose. We had what we thought was a lay down, and gheas? -- and guess what? We didn't -- we didn't get it. And that is -- that's a hard fight and I think that you're asking for the right thing to find out whether or not there are things that we can do. And I知 sure that we will probably -- and that scenic Texas will try again in 2009 to do something with this. I知 sure that you will probably find that the Commissioners court again will be unanimous in trying to help with that.
>> but let's take a look at deed restrictions and what we can do on that.
>> let me say this real quick and I知 going to shut up. It appears to me that in this particular issue, looking at what's going on there and what I知 hearing today -- and as Commissioner Daugherty had stated earlier, we have been struggling with the billboard situation throughout all of Travis County, not just your area. We're talking about all over Travis County. ' But it appears to me if there's any way to rectify or correct the problem before any permit is issued, it occurs to me that the requirements on finding out if there's deed restrictions on the placement of where these billboards will go should be the first thing to check.
>> that would be helpful.
>> so that type of legislation ought to be easily fixed. In other words, you don't put something into something that's not zoned for it to be there.
>> right. That's what I was going to bring up.
>> that is in my opinion one of the ways the legislature, whoever Travis County delegation is looking into it, hearing the concerns where this level of government has Commissioner eckhardt and Commissioner Daugherty have kind of spoken to. It appears that would be part of the solution is to prevent the problem from ever happen to go begin with. You check and see if there's a deed restriction in the area of where you're trying to place these billboards.
>> that's what I was going to bring up is several permits, commercial entities, spicewood stone, has been able to obtain be and they say we don't have to abide by deed restrictions. We don't even have to pull them. Yet a realtor has to sell it and has to provide a title that shows a deed restriction, but yet these permits are being issued left and right through the lcra, tceq, etcetera, etcetera, txdot, and so on, without even noticing or looking into our deed restrictions. That seem like a layer of government that's been anil lated or wiped away.
>> it needs to be fixed.
>> [overlapping speakers]
>> any final words?
>> mr. Daugherty, you said before a few minutes ago there would be this tremendous pressure to commercialize along 71 and it would be a can of worms if we got into that and the legislature, there might be even be some backlash. But I assume what you're talking about are property rights. But this is a property rights issue in the sense that you have deed restrictions. I知 trying to envision a legislature that would say, gee, if something should be commercialized, to hell with the deed restrictions. We're going to facilitate that. I would think that a property rights legislature would take the opposite view that says deed restrictions take precedence over whatever the commercial trend may be on 71. I fully agree with you where land is not under a deed restriction, it's going to be very difficult to limit or manage commercialization along 71, but where deed restrictions are an issue, I would think it would be a no brainer.
>> I would hope, gene, that that would be the case. But I have watched what's happened with the legislature before, and you're right, it's sort of like whoever ox is getting gored and whoever has the ability to speak the loudest and have the resources to go over there. And this clearly, y'all, we understand. A lot of it is a lack of resources on y'all's part to be able to get in and to impose these things on the folks.
>> I致e got to buy gasoline. I can't afford an attorney now.
>> katy, I知 not -- --
>> if somebody be wants to buy all 30 lots, they can do whatever they want with that. It's theirs now. If somebody wants to come in and give us fair market value for each resident there who is willing to sell their 30 lots, then the deed restrictions are theirs to do with what they wish. But as long as each of us individuals own our little two acre piece of dirt that we bought with this provision, then I feel that it's our right to stand up and make a big old fit about somebody violating it.
>> katy, it is --
>> it is a violation.
>> it is absolutely your right to do it.
>> well, I should hope that I could come to you, who are representing me, because I don't have those resources to stand there and run every company -- every parcel on the highway has got somebody be's eye on it because they want that commercial growth. They got a cheap piece of land that is worse three or four times that because it's a legitimate unrestricted lot. I feel it's very unfair. And I知 turning to you to help me to protect my land and my rights.
>> what a lot of people don't understand is deed restrictions is a very simple contract law. It's a contract between the original seller and the original buyer and it follows along through all the subsequent buyers. And when somebody buys a parcel in my subdivision, they made a contract with me that they would maintain the residential character of the subdivision. That's how simple it is. It is a contract. And one reason why the state entities grant the permits without looking up, they say it's a contract law between sybil and joe. I don't care. Let sybil sue joe. That's their attitude.
>> and it's not a bad attitude to have under certain circumstances.
>> but pretty soon sybil has had to sue so many people that she's broke.
>> right. It's not a bad attitude to have under the presumption that everyone has an equal ability to protect their own property rights. But the reality is not that.
>> but it's always --
>> speaking of how we might help, why don't we see what the answer is. We've been discussing item number 39, we will now go into executive session under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act to discuss only this item. And when we return to court, we will take any appropriate action.
we have been in executive session for the last -- 40 minutes or so discussing item no. 39. With legal counsel. 39 is a matter involving hazy hills ranch yes, sir subdivisions and the complaint they brought to Commissioners court about billboard signs on 71, spicewood stone commercial development, noise and other alleged nuisances. Any comments from the court? I move that we do the following: based on our discussion and legal advice. Two, we continue to pursue information regarding an adoption of an appropriate fee schedule to put the county in a position to enforce deed restrictions as appropriate. That we as soon as possible draft appropriate language for the court's consideration. That we research what other county it is in Texas have done. I understand that number is very few. But hopefully a review of their work would enable us to expedite this requirement. As a footnote, typically we would do a draft policy if we decide to continue, notice a public hearing, receive public comments before taking final action. That the second step we take is to -- to determine any and all county required permits and make sure that this development complained about, which is located in Travis County, and not another county, that those require permits or -- that those required permits are obtained and any appropriate county policies and procedures are complied with and that, thirdly, we continue to investigate any nuisance, pockets of similar violations, that would give the county some leverage. So those three things stand out.
>> second.
>> for me. The other question is whether we should have this back on the court's agenda next week or two weeks for follow-up action.
>> judge, I think --
>> can we make sure that we expedite this in some manner, though? I think if we can kind of work at this, as quickly as we can, and expedite it, so it doesn't drag out.
>> yes. You know, if you want to leave it on, I can update you next week on how far we have gotten on developing all of that information for you.
>> that would be very nice.
>> that way if we need to carry it another week after that, that's great, but hopefully we will have as much information as you all need by next week.
>> in simple terms, I知 sure you all are going what was that all about, we are trying to work we will work towards giving us the ability to help y'all. There are things that we have to put in place in order to do that legally. So that's -- that's what we are going to work hard and we are also going to have our department go out and discuss things with the property and the owners to let them know that there are probably some things that they need to have in place that they don't have in place right now. And that they are subject to our either closing them or asking them to close or slowing them down or whatever. Now whether we are -- you know, whether we can go out and say hey y'all can't do business anymore. Obviously what we would like for them to do is to understand that we have got to be able to get them to comply with some things. So I mean your efforts, you know, are -- have been heard, we're going to work like the dickens to get some resolution and get y'all some help. Give us a little opportunity here to put some things in place and sometimes this takes a little longer than what everybody wants. But we're moving towards I think giving you all some great assistance. Does that in effect, judge, what we're doing in.
>> yes.
>> Gerald, Commissioner, court members, the audience here today we have really -- really approached this in a challenging posture of trying to bring about -- about some resolve to -- to not only this issue as I stated earlier, brought this issue up in the -- in your neck of the woods, but this is something that is challenging throughout all of Travis County. We have done some very innovative things here to let the folks know in this community that this particular court has really worked hard in trying to address a lot of the issues that are before us now as far as land use, notice of -- of non-residential activities coming into a residential area whereby we have unanimously supported a -- a notice that type of non-residential activity within
>> [indiscernible] feet of residential. A unanimous vote in supporting that. Number two, we have -- this court has unanimously supported a public opinions survey that's being conducted now, at least the process has started on trying to determine land use authority for -- for Travis County that hopefully will -- will send a clear message to the state, Texas state legislature that Travis County hopefully, if the residents in the way this team effort come out, hopefully results that will show Travis County is definitely interested in land use authority. So -- so this is just another tier of many tiers that we have worked on from this court to ensure that a lot of this thing that you are he could coming is just kind of all over the community. I just wanted to let you all know that this is not just a one shot -- situation, it's a multi-shot situation and we are trying to address it the best way we can. So thank y'all.
>> any more discussion? By the way, maybe kind of hard to understand is send us an e-mail to any member of the court, we will try to describe what happened. We cannot summarize, we can get a summary I guess of our discussion, we are not supposed to give you any verbatim report of that. Otherwise it wouldn't have been eligible for executive session. We can certainly explain what this motion is all about. A real important point is that the law does require adoption of a fee schedule by the Commissioners court before we can take some of the actions that you requested that we take. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much for coming down. We will have this on the agenda each week for an update.
>> thank you.
>> my name is jason
>> [indiscernible] I live out that way, actually --
>> sit down so we can hear you at the mic.
>> I知 sorry, I致e actually volunteered to represent the hazy hill owners in an action against spicewood stone and what I知 curious is, discussing with my clients, do we have a rough idea as to how long it might take for the county to get the fee schedule in place and then to possibly take action if it deems that appropriate and passes?
>> my suggestion is that -- that normally for us to -- to adopt a fee schedule, we would treat it the same way that we would any other public policy. So -- so wed basically adopt a draft, publicize that, schedule a public hearing, conduct one, take into consideration comments that we receive there. I would normally guess 45 to 60 days, even if we expedite it.
>> okay. Because obviously one of my clients' concern is do we wait that long for the county to act or do we file a private civil action.
>> surely.
>> prior to that.
>> thank you.
>> and kevin morse seems to be the lead assistant county attorney. If he needs to chat with him, I知 sure that he would be happy to discuss it with you.
>> thank you.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 2:31 PM