Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, February 8, 2011,
Item 13
And since we have you there, 13, consider and take appropriate action on the following: a, amendment to chapter 82 to require notification regarding Travis County's limited land use authority to cover sheet of plats.
and 13 b, amend to title 30 to add section 30-2-87 to require notification regarding Travis County's limited land use authority on the cover sheet of plans.
good morning.
>> good morning.
anna bolin and steve manila, Travis County t.n.r.
after the last public hearing, steve and I met with representatives of hba to discuss their testimony in court.
basically what they said were they said mainly three things.
one that the plat note wouldn't capture all of the audience in part because of the timing of the note.
that the timing was at the end of the process, they felt, in their opinion, and that it would only affect new plats.
this suggested that instead of that that there would be some kind of notice that the county placed in deed records or some kind of notice included in the sale of contracts.
they also had some issues with the subjective language of our supposed note and they felt it was fairly negative.
and lastly, they basically said that one of their issues -- another issue with our proposed note was that they would prefer that it include a disclaimer saying that this note was a Commissioners court mandate.
that's what we learned when we discussed the matter with the home builders association.
>> and we also received email yesterday from carly foreman from southeast Austin more or less expressing their -- her opinion on the use of this note.
she adds, I can read the email into the record if you prefer, but the bottom line is she states at the end that we do not support this very one-sided benefit/intent effort if it applies to existing property owners who since 2002 were not disclosed to and tricked into buying property that were known to be placed in harm's way in the first place and knowingly by the very came Commissioners proposing this themselves.
>> well, this particular version as far as what we're looking at here today and what we have looked at this the past when we were only able to -- when we amended I guess the first portion of this as far as the notification in the earlier version, not including the title 30 phases, which is the city of Austin, and what we're looking at here today and hopefully we'll be able to look at this again.
I understand that the home builders association carolina of maybe wanted this -- did they want this postponed as far as any action today?
>> they did, Commissioner.
they asked for the 15th.
>> and I guess we would normally kind of abided by requests when folks make them as such, and since they are such an integral part of this process, I would entertain that, I guess.
but I want it led out for what it is.
number 1, this is -- when we brought this together it wasn't for existing residence, basically we're talking about new -- new -- new properties, new acquisitions on subdivisions, new subdivisons or replats.
and I think that is still probably applicable as far as what we're doing here.
any variation from what our intent is as far as looking at new subdivisions or replats?
>> currently what we are looking at, what we presented during the public hearing is for new subdivisions including the portions of plats that could be replatted.
>> replatted.
>> but only with new subdivision plats.
>> right.
so this is basically where the direction that we're still continuing.
it's not applicable to existing land or existing facilities that are already out there.
I want to make sure it's publicly known and understand because sometimes you can get things twisted a bit and one person hears one thing and they end up responding in a different manner.
so since that is the case and I want to make sure that everyone understands, land use is a big deal.
it has been around here since I’ve been here.
and, of course, some things that you do from this diaz or you do out in the community, sometimes they get buried in the sand of time.
an example, when I first got on this particular Commissioners court, there were some things that I wanted to deal with as far as land use because precinct 1, the precinct that I represent, that I live in, the precinct I was born in, was just overwhelming inundated with things and I could go back to those trash trucks stuck on 12th and hargrave city of Austin had when they are hauling and bringing stinky garbage trucks over there and flies and everything else in the community.
I remember those days.
I remember the smokestack of the burning of the -- all the garbage that came over there.
all of that was in precinct 1.
so these battles have been going on for a long time.
not only in the incorporated area, but in the unincorporated area of Travis County.
and we have tried our best to address them accordingly.
the storage tank farm another one.
that has been a continuum of an effort made to address these things.
I remember working long hours with this young man sitting to my left and another person by the name of john kulow who is flonger with Travis County working on something we called the solid waste siting ordinance.
that came under chapter 62.
and that chapter 62 which addressed land use issues as far as buffers and things like that where recycling, composting of dead animals and all other type of hazards that were in the community, we had buffers set aside for major and minor facilities.
minor facility being in the repsych willing facility, for example.
that's a minor.
major being composting dead animals and other things.
so we have continued to try to struggle dealing with land use buffering situations over the years.
over a long time.
this is back in 2001.
here we are 2011 and we're still fighting the battle for the community, to let them know that yes, this very limited stuff that we can do, but that that we can do, we are doing it.
and that needs to be understood.
so we're not trying to beat up anybody.
we're just trying to give some type of protection as far as what the legislature has given us authority to do.
and I say the legislature have given the county authority to do, use the tools we have available to us at this time.
and this is just another tool of just letting someone know when you purchase your property out there, letting you know that the county has limited land use authority.
it's a harmless notification.
harmless.
so again, I don't mind waiting until the homeowners association folks get here, and as I’ve talked to individual members, they thought it was a great idea.
they think we need to do that to protect person's investments, to let them know what is going to be located next to them.
we let them know about schools, churches, all these other things when it comes to disclosures, but when it comes to hazardous things, no one wants to talk about it.
but I want to talk about it.
I want the folks out here in the community to know what we're doing and let them know that under new -- new subdivisions or replatting -- replats and things like that, that the county has very limited land use authority, and it goes back for years for me as far as fighting this issue and addressing it anyway the best I can, and this is just another tool of notifying folks that we're going in a direction.
thank you.
>> mr. Priest.
>> thank you, judge, Commissioners, morris priest on my own behalf.
I notice that steve was getting ready to say something, but I did want to say I want to applaud steve and anna bolin for their fine work and service in the community and we got two great Travis County employees here sitting in front of this court and I’m proud and honored that they are working on our behalf.
I did want to say that some of this, Commissioner Davis, I heard what you had to say, but some of us feel in this community sometimes there's a defensiveness, and immunol singling you out by any means, we see this from all of our Commissioners and judges but a defensiveness when it happens to arise in one precinct or another and sometimes almost a campaign speech.
but what we're really focusing on here is the stigma put on property owners with this plat notice and we've seen this in our water development situation too and we've also seen this county give almost unlimited variances without even seeing a site plan and waivers on our county Commissioners court.
and I think the voice that many people are trying to get heard and the thing that really many people are wanting this county Commissioners court to hear is there is an agenda when we come to these water districts and when these plat note type issues, there is an agenda and it does -- it is a property rights issue and there is a stigma that's put on people's property in some of these scenarios that are played out.
and this agenda hasn't always been on the Commissioners court.
not everybody has had the intestinal fortitude and the character such as yourself and we have two members on this Commissioners court, my Commissioner and Karen Huber, that's been -- has been quite combative at times with txi issues.
and one of the Travis County attorneys that I spoke with told me and she agreed with me that not every single issue is a land use issue and there's many things that the county can do to address some of these situations on these land use issues.
sometimes the public feels there are things they could do whether it comes to traffic and other legal means other than this land use issues and sometimes we feel this is falling on deaf ears.
but I did want to say that appreciate your service as well as everyone on this court, but there is a stigma and there is -- we've seen it time and time again whether it comes to transportation, which is a land use issue such as the court being told in the polls to buy land for right-of-way of southwest 45, and we saw how combative members of this court were over that issue and that, I feel, is a land use issue as well because of the voters that voted to buy that right-of-way for southwest 45.
but I understand your comments and I appreciate your passion and have tremendous respect for you, butnr I think that this isn't a matter of unintended consequences.
this is matter that people are understanding what certain members of this court are telling landowners.
and we view this as a property rights issue.
I just wanted to thank you for your service.
>> and I hear what you are saying also, but I want you to hear what the folks are saying and I was born and raised here and I have lived on the east side.
I was witnessed the things happening on the east side may not happen anywhere else in Travis County but on the east side.
that's a stickler itself.
the environmental injustice that has been perpetrated --
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] regarding concerns about property values ad to a plat.
I’d like to enter her e-mail into the record with the clerk if that is okay with you all.
the other thing, I don't want anybody to come away with a misconception that the homeowners association is totally opposed to this.
they had suggested that a way to get more people alerted to this, not just in new subdivisions but existing ones, was for us to require a note of this type afixd to a purchase contract for a home, for example, or somewhere where it would be found during a title search.
our concern to them, and when they mentioned that, is we don't believe we have the authority to do something like that.
maybe tom could add to that.
>> I think that is right.
we did talk about requiring some sort of notice in the purchase contract.
or earlier in the process.
and I don't think that, think, it's questionable whether we would have that authority.
even if we do, I don't know how we would ever enforce it.
we can enforce a notes on the plat because the account has to approve a plat before it can be filed in the deed records.
so I think this is a case of we're doing what we can do with the authority we have.
to the home builders, I would say welcome to the world of trying to address an issue with inadequate set of legal tools.
I mean, it's not a policy choice we're making just to have this in plat.
that is really the only place we have the legal authority to do anything.
so yeah, it would be better to have something in the contract.
but we don't have the legal authority to require it.
>> what about their suggestion that as an entity file a separate paper, that in their words may pick up by the title company?
>> see, I don't know how that would work because the title company needs a legal description to identify documents.
as a matter of fact, to file something in the deeds records, we would have to have a legal description.
we can't describe every square inch of land outside city limits.
so I don't know how that would work.
>> it does sound like our only good option for notifying home buyers of the substantially different circumstance with regard to land use is on a plat note.
>> I think so.
that is the best we could do.
>> this would require the notice on the cover sheet of plats.
>> right.
>> I will also say this.
think home bidders have talked about--builders have talked about their cerb that the buyer wount see it until closing.
the idea was that the buyer would see it when they get their title commitment from the title company, which happens as soon as their contract is executed.
the title company will give you the title commitment along with a copy of all the documents that affect your title.
one of those being the plat.
so the idea was that, you know, the buyer would be getting the plat long before closing.
the title commitment is given to the buyer long before closing.
so that if the buyer sees something in one of those documents affecting his or her title, they can point that out to the seller and say you need to fix this or correct it.
so I disagree that there's going to be a lot of times when a buyer would not see the plat until closing and then want to cancel the closing.
>> let me ask you one other thing.
they suggested, or in one of the e-mails, I believe that mr. Savia sent out, one suggestion he made was that the existence of a special district may offset some of the concerns that we put in here.
we do have a caveat paragraph that says the subdivision's restrictive con nants may across restrictions within incompatible lands uses within the subdivisions whether inside or outside city limits.
would it be appropriate to consider their concern there, to add that a subdivision's restrictive covenants or existence of a special district?
may create privately enforceable restrictions?
>> I don't think.
there's not a special district I know of in Travis County that has control over incompatible uses.
the real issue is incompatible uses.
and special district in Travis County have no more zoning authority than counties do.
>> right.
special district just go to funding mechanism.
but doesn't increase their ability to manage incompatible use.
okay.
>> we previous will --previously voted to put a notice like this in the plat itself.
so what impact has that had?
do we know?
>> well, the city of Austin staff had issues with that.
the particular wording and so on.
and that is really the reason this is sort of more morphed into this current notice.
the previous language we had come up with raised some legal questions with the city.
so in an effort to address those issues, we turned to this approach that is before you now.
>> we didn't implement the other decision?
>> we did.
>> we did.
>> okay.
>> outside the etj, we did.
but this would change that because we'd like to have the same thing in the etj as outside the etj.
>> Commissioner Davis, you are' menable to the one week postponement to give the homeowners--
>> I think so.
you know, we're talking essentially home builders association are mr. --present here today.
whee a pretty good exchange.
I think it would be fair and appropriate for them to be here as we move forward, this type of notification process.
postponement for one week would be adequate.
>> we'll have this item back on next week.
>> thank you, judge.
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, February, 2011 2:19 PM
