~ ~ laS~p
COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST
PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND FIVE COPIES OF THIS REQUEST AND
DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT.
MADE BY: THOMAS S. TERRELL
ATTORNEY FOR MO RANCH
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 12~ 1996
SUBJECT: (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC):
OFFICE: 896-5677
TIME PREFERRED: 11:00 A.M.
CULLUM LAKE ESTATES.
On April 15, the Court approved Mrs. Kearney's application to cancel a portion of a plat. Mrs.
Kearney was to report back to the Court whether she would pay money to Mo Ranch, or build the new
access road. Nothing happened until July, when, without notice to Mo Ranch or this Court, Mrs. Kearney
began building a new road. The entrance and the road are not "comparable" or suitable. This matter should
be placed on hold until Mrs. Kearney gets approval for a specific road design and Right-of--Way.
EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON:
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: 20 minutes
IF PERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE:
NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: TOM TERRELL/GUY DELANEY
Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in accordance with
Title 5, Chapter 551 and 552, Government Code, is as follows:
Meeting scheduled for Mondays
TIME REQUEST RECEIVED BY:
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED ON:
5:00 p.m. previous Tuesday.
All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate
information has been prepared for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court Meetings.
Your cooperation will be appreciated and contribute towards you request being addressed at the earliest
opportunity. See Agenda Request Rules Adopted by Commissioners' Court.
f - ,- - ,.. _ _. _ ... _ ...
' r; ~ .:. ( '_ •.~ ~ ::_ _ to c. , _'. i. .,.: i -_• ', ?"i 4' C.7 t <~''i t Y _ L3 .::i r ..; : :`V ~ -.
~..
i ... ... .
t t ~ .. ..
,.. ,~ ,.: ., _ ~ ..< :: £? _ - d3 :_ t., C~ i Et .t.. , a f] t'i t t t f t i-
i.: fc i r...:'..~ .i
~~` - ~ '!_iCiCjE~ L7"s.j~~.J1"ffi ~ "~ L ~ i'r t'flisf~ C.n r"'r',..,. i ... ;.t:s _ ..
MEMO
RE: CULLUM LAKE ESTATES -MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 1996
TO: COMMISSIONERS' COURT
FROM: TOM TERRELL, ATTORNEY FOR MO RANCH
1. Chloe Kearney, through her attorneys Lynn LeMeilleur and Darrell Lochte filed an
application to cancel a portion of the plat of Cullum Lake Estates.
2. On April 15, 1996, the Commissioners' Court voted to approve the application
provided that Kearney convey aright-of--way and either pay money to Mo Ranch to
build a road, or build it herself. At that time, there was another contractor in the
neighborhood and an estimate was given of about $5,400.
Kearney was to report back to the Commissioners' Court what plan of action she
elected.
3 . This matter was reset for Apri122, 1996. The Minutes state: "This item was discussed
but passed at this time because Mrs. Kearney was not ready with the information
needed."
1
4. Nothing else happened on this until July, three months later. Then, without notice to
the Commissioners' Court or Mo Ranch, Mrs. Kearney began construction ofthe new
road. One supposes that Kearney intends this new road to be Mo Ranch's only means
of access.
5. During this period of time, the old lock on the main gate (to which Mo Ranch had a
key) mysteriously disappeared. It was replaced with a combination lock. The new
cattle gates on the new road were locked. On August 5, 1996, pursuant to demand
from Tom Terrell, the combination to the main gate was furnished.
6. The new road and entrance are not "comparable or acceptable":
a. The original entrance goes through a spacious archway and has an
attractive boulevard look. Contrast that with the metal cattle gate
furnished by Mrs. Kearney.
b. There have been several meetings on the ground concerning the
location of the new road. These discussions have always envisioned a
"straight shot" from the highway to the Cul-de-sac. The new road,
however, after passing through the cattle gate, makes an, immediate
full, 90 degree turn to the left and then meanders to the cul-de-sac.
2
c. 'lhe road base is defective. A person can actually kick down into the
base with his shoe. Frank Johnston states, from visual inspection, that
the base does not meet the minimum proctor density test.
This means, of course, pot holes will occur in the road. The surface and
base will erode. Within a few years, the whole road will have to be
rebuilt.
d. One portion has an oak tree root just below the surface.
e. The base material should have been built up in the dip so the road
would be more level. This would also keep water off the surface of the
road and prevent erosion.
7. On July 17, 1996, Kearney sold Lots 13, 14, 15, 29 and the eastern portion of
23 to Nicholson.
8. Kearney has a prospective buyer for all of the remaining tracts.
3
COMMENTS
1. Kearney has demonstrated an intent not to furnish a comparable entrance or road.
2. Mo Ranch has a $400,000 investment in this property. At the time of Mo Ranch's
purchase, of course, it was represented to Mo Ranch that the price included an
attractive entrance and road. It is not fair that a portion of what Mo Ranch purchased
is now being taken away.
3. There is absolutely no need for Mo Ranch's use of the entrance and Bluff Hill Road
to be terminated.
Certainly, Mrs. Kearney has not had any trouble selling her property. In fact, within
the next few weeks, she will have sold all of it.
4. Even if the plat vacation is approved, this Court, by appropriate order can preserve
Mo Ranch's use of the main entrance and Bluff Hill Road.
5. The roads will still be there. I don't suppose anyone is going to bulldoze them out.
Why can't Mo Ranch have the right to use them?
s ~~ ~~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
..~. .
~~ ~, A.TEt~I~

L. P
T. P
A
l~ U,
{~
_,~~~ ~
~~~~~
7. i
d
h
6. II
5. N
6. ;
1
t
\~' .
1`
1
/,
~ \ /~/ /G~
e-~ ,~
413on' N1~N ~~
~~~~~ F M
/~~` /~ ~UoTTo 43~ C'AN~e~~p
~ s ~AtiCel.
~lor To Sc~,1e
-0r --J
{~. Eel?t]
~IJn~{gale
UTILITY
rldth a1
eneement
[or [he
condul [s
[liece to
.emt
ce6les o
mnillty .
easement
mny of [I