1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Workshop
Monday, October 27, 2003
2:45 p.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
KERR COUNTY SUBDIVISION RULES AND REGULATIONS
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
M
~~
ti
'`
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, October 27, 2003, at approximately 2:45 p,m,,
a workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in
the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order the
workshop of Commissioners Court that was posted for this
date, October 27th, 2003, at 1:30. It is now just a bit
after a quarter till 3:00 in the afternoon, and the items on
the agenda -- first one is workshop to review and discuss
enforcement, Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
I suppose -- do you want to take them in order, or do you
want to take one out of order, or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we can take them
in order. I don't see any reason not to.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll just, before we get
started, say a couple of comments. I mean, we -- or I, or
someone started this last spring, I believe. Then we got
penned up revising Subdivision Rules, discussed it, then we
got into budget, then we got into sewers, and now we're
coming back out of the sewers and back in the subdivisions.
So, finally got around to reworking some of this language
and trying to incorporate most of what I had in my notes
1 0-~ 7- 0 3 w k
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~- 13
14
1~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
over the last couple of years where we need to make some
changes.
These are truly a rough draft version of this
at this point. TherE~'s a lot of -- the form this is in with
all the paragraphs numbers is a very good form, easy to
identify and find things, but it's an absolute nightmare to
revise, because the edit mode -- if you change one thing,
all of a sudden the computer changed everything else; you
don't know where you are. So, I don't even try do all that.
I'm going to let Thea tackle that part of it. There's some
things, like T.C.E.Q.'s referred to as T.N.R.C.C. a few
times. Really, all those typo:> will be cleaned up in a
later version. Right now, we're more interested in the -- I
guess, the content. I thought the -- one of the first
things I thought that we needed to address, certainly
related to this, is the enforcement of them, and I have
changed the language of enforcement in the Subdivision Rules
quite a bit. I think that's a real problem that we have
had. And we've -- under new rules, if we go that direction,
there's a little bit more area for enforcement to come
through inspections ~znd r_equir.ing things to be under certain
standards in a littlf~ bit more detail.
So, I asked County Attorney David Motley to
review kind of the --- specifically, the enforcement; you
know, what our enfor~~ement powers are, how we go about it in
10-~7-C3 w}.
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,---
25
a general context. Because I know there are several
subdivisions or incidents in subdivisions right now that are
not in compliance, and I think we need to start making them
come into compliance. And the one that comes to mind, the
most blatant is in Precinct 4, Buckhorn -- whatever that
place -- I mean, wh<~~_e~Ter it's called. It's Buckhorn R.V.
Fark, and they've never -- their final plat was contingent
on doing a floodplai~z analysis and satisfying some FEMA
requirements. That has never been done or presented to the
Court. The County Engineer has asked numerous times, and
they just are not -- refused to do it. And I think we need
to know truly what our enforcement ability is and how we go
about enforcing everything from that to people that do
illegal subdivisions or making further divisions of existing
subdivisions without doing final revision of plat. So, I
asked David to kind ~~f rive us a little overview as to what
we, do. David?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, our current rules -- or
the proposed rules mirror the state rules. They're, as I
see it, identical now. I don't have a copy of the existing
rules with me, and T thought we were talking about
respectively -- you wanted to know what the State fell out?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, yes.
MR. MOTLEY: Under 232.005 of the Local
Government Code, the remedies -- and I -- for subdivisions
1-_'~-03 wY
5
1
.- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in general, "At the req~~est of the Commissioners Court, the
County Attorney or or_hei: prosecuting attorney can file an
action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin the
violation or threatened violation of a requirement
established by or adopted by the commissioners court..."
So, an injunction is available, or an action for damages,
which would be to recover damages in the amount of money
adequate for the County to undertake any activity or
construction that would bring that subdivision into
compliance. So, the county Commissioners Court could then
spend the money to l,i~,grade the road, whatever it is; then
sue the individual sub -- you know, person with the
subdivision for the amount of money it took to bring that
subdivision into compliance. There is a criminal
enforcement provision. And, again, these three sections are
mirrored just identically in the proposed rules. If a
person knowingly or intentionally violates a requirement
established by or adopted by the Commissioners Court, then
offense under that is a Class B misdemeanor. And I believe
that's punishable by up t.n six months in jail andlor $2,000
fine.
COMMI:~SIONER BALDWIN: Goad lord.
MR. M~~TLEY: Now, there is another provision
-- there's some other kind cf general recommendation, but
you're talking about enforcement overall. There's a
_o-_ ;-o~ ~~~-
6
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.._ 2 4
25
conflict-of-interest provision added as far as enforcement.
That's not enforcement of the Subdivision Rules, per se, but
one of the people voting on the subdivision or issue related
to subdivision, there can be criminal enforcement; it's a
Class A. Now, let m~~ also say, you know, this is for
counties in general. And in the subdivision -- excuse me,
Subchapter B, subdivision platting requirements in a county
near an international border -- within 50 miles of
international border, the punishment provisions go up
substantially, and civil enforcement is allowed. Different
sort of a civil enforcement with civil penalties and such is
allowed. And violations like false advertising relating to
a subdivision is punishable as a Class A misdemeanor. If a
person -- let's see if I got this right. If you -- if you
fail to file a plat, it.'s a Class A misdemeanor. If you
fail to provide utility services or connections, it's a
Class A misdemeanor. If a defendant causes five or more
residences in the subdivision to be inhabited without
properly filing a plat, that's a state jail felony. So,
it's much stricter laws allowed within 50 miles of an
international border.
There's yet another Subchapter C, which has
to do -- I don't know where we come down on this, but
subdivision plat.tinc requirements in certain economically
distressed counties. And there has -- you know, we have a
ir,-2~-0~ Wk

1
2
3
4
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
,-. 13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,--~
25
definition for that. I don't know exactly where we are on
that. Y'all may know a little better than I do on this one.
But, basically, the definition of "economically distressed
area" means an area in which water supply or sewer services
are inadequate to meet minimal needs of residential users,
as defined by board rules. And I think we're talking about
the -- probably the Water Commission on this. This is in
the Water Code. Or -- and, excuse me -- okay. So, that's
the first thing. Financial. r_esou.rces are inadequate to
provide water supply or sewer_ services -- that will satisfy
those needs -- and an established residential subdivision
was located on June Est, 1.989, as determined by the board.
So, I don't know -- you know, there's been some economic
exceptions and applications and things, and I don't know if
this meets that criteria. There are some different
punishment provisions available for subdivisions that fall
within that category, too.
COMMI:~SIONER LETZ: David -- okay. Going --
MR . M~~TLEY : Yeah?
COMMI:~SIONER LETZ: I mean, assuming, you
know, we're not distressed and we know we're not 50 miles
from the border, if we go -- we're under basic general
rules, so if someone knowingly commits an offense, it's a
Class B misdemeanor?
MR. MOTLEY: Yeah.
io-~~-03 wE_
8
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's criminal.
MR. MOTLEY: Knowingly or intentionally,
that's Class B. Let's see if I have the right -- knowingly
or intentional viol~i'_ion of a requirement established by or
adopted by Commissioners Court -- Commissioners Court. That
is a Class B misdemeanor.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Now, I'm -- I'm a
legal illiterate, okay? Explain to me -- that's criminal.
You said the others were civil?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, the other ones would be
just a civil action in court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the -- what's the
difference?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, one of them, you're
seeking to be able to incarcerate a person and -- and/mar
take a fine, in the name -- I guess it'd probably be the
General Fund of the County, or Road and Bridge or whoever
gets the fines. The others, you're seeking to get a court
order to prohibit somebody from doing an act or to require
somebody to do an act by way of injunction.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. Mc~'rLE1': If a person has violated your
local rules, or is t I~rE~at erring to violate -- you know,
that's probably a little vague, you know, but I think when
somebody is building -- and this includes additions, too, by
~~o-~~-o~ ~a~:
9
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the way. We're not talking about just the original
subdivision, but if somebody is constructing a subdivision
or addition to a subdivision, and well underway, and putting
in what looks like streets and such, I think you have the
right to inquire about that. And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Say we go out
there, and say someone has an existing subdivision; there's
a 5-acre lot, and they've sold half of it to somebody else.
What can we do?
MR. MOTLEY: Well, okay. That goes back to
your definition of subdivision. I mean, if we`re talking
about a person --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Basically --
MR. MOTLEY: -- dividing a piece of land into
two tracts or more -- two or more parts of land to lay out a
subdivision, including an addition, lots or streets, alleys,
et cetera. I mean, there's several -- you know, there are
many exceptions, as you're well aware, to the platting
requirement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But once you're in a
subdivision, don't aLl of those go out the window? I mean,
once you're in the subdivision, you're in that subdivision,
and none of those requirements for a -- a subdivision apply
any more.
MR. MOTLEY: You're saying that you already
lu-~7-03 w};
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have a platted subdivision?
COMM=L:~SIONER LETZ: You're in a platted
subdivision, and thF~~y divide a lot.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, then -- then, yeah. I
mean, let me see what_ you got here. Determine -- okay, hold
on a minute. There's an agricultural use exception, there's
a subdivision exception. where you're dividing into not more
than four tracts, transfer to relatives, acreage exemptions,
two or more tracts cf less than 10 acres -- excuse me, I
should say not more than 10 acres. More than 10 acres --
hold on just a minut.f~. I want to be sure I'm going through
all this. Land Boar~~, state ownership exception, political
ownership, floodplain, sold to adjoining landowners. There
are two sections than deal with a partition or a type of
partition. Owner oŁ a tract ]_ocated outside the city limits
divides it into two parts. They're not required to have a
plat it the owner doesn't lay out a part of the tract
described in 232.001(a)(3), which is for subdivisions, lots,
alleys, et cetera -- streets, alleys, squares, parks, or
other parts of a tra~~t. Okay. Then there's also another
where a county may not require the owner of a tract of land
located outside the Limits of a municipality who divides a
tract into two or more parts to have a plat of the
subdivision prepared if the owner doesn't lay out these
streets, alleys, et ~~etera, and all parts are transferred to
1.,-~--~? wk
11
1
..-._ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
persons who owned an undivided interest in the original
tract, and a plat is filed before any further development.
So there are, you know, half a dozen exceptions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. MOTLEY: And what you're saying, if I get
your hypothetical cor_rec:t, you're saying that there's
already a subdivisioi,~, and an individual has bought a lot in
that subdivision, a 10-acre lot or whatever -- 8 acres, and
chooses to sell 4 acres to somebody else. If they're not a
relative cr, you know, different -- different things like
that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, even if they are,
once they revise the plat, I don't see -- I mean, I don't
see how any of this e-.ren applies once you're in a
subdivision, because then you're talking about revision of
plat, and that's a ~~~iiolF~ different set of standards, and
they don't have any exemptions for revision of plat, the way
I read the rules.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, let me -- just a minute
here. Well, the way -- of course -- okay, they don't have
to do a revision of the plat. They can file -- they can
file a new plat. I mean, are you saying they're -- you're
talking about, like, a -- like, the abbreviated plat
process?
COMMI:~SIONER LETZ: I'm just saying, like --
-0- ~?-03 wk.
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I'm just saying if w~~ have an existing subdivision,
therefore, a plat, and pecple start changing lot lines,
basically --
MR. MOTLEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- you know, then, if
they start doing that, none of this applies. I mean, you
can't -- in an existing subdivision, you can't sell a lot to
your brother-in.-law and say, "I'm exempt," because under our
rules, 1.02, because then it's -- that's a whole different
part of our subdivision rules. It's revision of plat that
applies at that poin'_, to me.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, I don't --
COMMI'~SIONER LETZ: If not, I don't see how
you could ever enforce our plats.
MR. MOTLEY: Well, again -- okay. It says
county may not require the owner of a tract located outside
the city limits of a municipality who divides a tract into
four or fewer parts and does not lay out part of the tract
described under 232.001a)(3) -- which is, again, streets,
alleys, squares, parks, or ether parts intended to be
dedicated for publi~~ use -- to have a plat of a subdivision
prepared if each of r_ho 1_ots is to be sold, given, or
otherwise transferred to an individual who's related to the
owner within the third degree by consanguinity or affinity.
So, if --
10-~ ~-i.3 wk_
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
i0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS.
COM
MR.
you're saying, but
where you divide a
MS.
SOVIL: That's a new subdivision, David.
MISSIONER LETZ: That's a new subdivision.
MOTLEY: I understand. I understand what
isn't any act where you divide -- any act
l~>t :i nto more than one lit a subdivision?
SOVIL: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think when you're in
the subdivision, it comes under the section for revision of
plat.
MR. MOTLEY: Revision -- now, the revisions
that I looked at -- and, again, I looked at mainly what we
were talking about here. But the revision -- well, the
rules in here say -- the criminal enforcement rules say that
it applies to any rule adopted or -- let's see if I have
this right -- can enjoin the violation or threatened
violation of a requirement established by or adopted by the
Commissioners Court ender a preceding section of this
chapter. Really, when I looked at the -- and I haven't
looked in the current -- or the proposed rules, but the
revision, -- I don't see any punishment provisions attached
to that at all, if I'm not mistaken. I think -- I would
think we ought to be able to -- oh, that doesn't allow -- it
doesn't say this, but I would think that we aught to be able
to have some sort of a c:i.vil action to enjoin an improper
use of the property. Beat, you know, you're asking me a
1G-2~-03 wk_
14
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.,,_ 2 4
25
great question, 'cause I really -- I didn't --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean --
MR. MOTLEY: -- consider the revision. I
mean, I thought we were talking about the initial
subdivision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Talking about both.
Well, I mean, if -- if you can look at that, 'cause we --
there's two issues. One's a new subdivision.
MR . M~)TLE;Y : Ri crht .
COMM.i:7SIONER LETZ: Getting them to do that.
And that's -- I think yc>u spent more time on it. I'm asking
you now about a revision, but if you could look at that --
not now, but, I mean, just look at it and research it,
because that's where we have --
MR. MOTLEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- more of the
violations, is in existing subdivisions.
MR. Mc~TLE~': Well, our local rules define
subdivision as a dit-~ i_sic~n of a tract of land into two or
more parts. So, I -- that's my assumption.
CCMMI:~SICNER LETZ: You can't have a
subdivision within a subdivision. I don't know --
MR. MOTLEY: I think, literally,
"subdivision" is -- you got something; you keep cutting it
down.
10-~,-G3 w4:
15
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
1i
12
--- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,,,_ 2 4
25
COMMISSIONER BALDTiVIN: So the same law should
apply to both, whether it's a new subdivision or a revision?
MR. M~~TLEY: I think it's a new -- I think
it' s a subdivision ~~~,~ tr:i s guy. This guy owns this piece of
land, and he's turning it into two smaller pieces of land
for purposes of resi~~ential use. If it doesn't come under
one of those six or so exemptions, I think the guy's
subdividing without a plat. And if -- we don't have to
approve the plat if it doesn't meet our standards.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But then how do we --
that's interesting. I never looked at it that way. But
if -- say, if you're -- you know, have Ranchero Road going
through your subdivi:~ion and yc~u have a 10-acre trar_t, you
have plenty of front<~ge, 1,000 foot of frontage on Ranchero
Road. You divide -- do divide it in half, your existing
subdivision. You change the lot lines, but since you're not
doing anything with roads, you don't have to then file an
amended plat, or amend a revision of plat, because it's
exempt under --
MR. MOTLEY: Because they're not setting out
-- they're not setting out a pcrtion of it for roads.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. ~<<)HN,'TON: you're saying it's platted to
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. If it's already a
1 0- ~ 7- 0 3 w k
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
platted subdivision, then you change it, then there would be
no requirement for a revision.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think once it's platted,
those revisions go to the side. They have to do a revision.
MR. MOTLEY: I don't know.
MR. JOHNSTON: Otherwise, our land records
wouldn't make any sense; they'd all be messed up.
COMM] :~S IONER LE',TZ : But, anyway, that' s --
you know. Maybe look at. that a little closer, 'cause we're
not going to resolve this today. I just want to get some of
this up on the table. But when we go tc -- let me ask one
more question, then. The previous answer brought a question
to mind. Under the enjoined -- you know, we can enjoin or
get an injunction. Okay, say we go out there and -- to
Buckhorn, we aet an injunction to make them do the FEMA
study, or we do it and charge them for it. Those are the
two options?
MR. Mc)TLE;Y: Or there's -- there are other
options, but if we're talking about -- if we're talking
about this aspect of a subdivision from the get-go, my
understanding was that the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, no.
MR. MOTLEY: -- that was approved,
conditioned upon FEMA approval of -- and there was certain
work that was required --
~o-~~-n; w~_
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. M,~TLF;1': -- by the consulting engineer.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. MOTLEY: The hydrologist for the owner,
Buckhorn, that was not ever completed. It was deemed to be
too expensive, and maybe the study itself was deemed too
expensive, and FEMA compliance was abandoned at that point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A hydrology study was
supposed to be -- right, Frank?
MR. MOTLEY: He made recommendations, I
believe, and included certain things and got to the point
where, if I'm not mia'~aken, I think the owner determined
that not only were the repairs too expensive, but maybe the
rest of the hydrological. study --
MR. JOHNSTON: I think the hydrology study
was made, and when he went to change the FEMA map, he did
his study, sent it off to FEMA, and they sent a letter back
and said, "Well, you have to do so-and-so in order to be
compliant." At that point, the owner said, "I'm not going
to do these," and sc -- and just left it at that.
MR. Mc~TLFY: Okay. So, I guess it was a
finished study. I t.liinl: there are -- there is a -- you
know, to answer your question, I think, under that 232.005,
I believe it's (d), I believe t:~e -- no, excuse me, (b).
"B" as in boy. There's -- I think you can say it was
1 ~ - _ ~ - ~ ~ w k
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
knowingly or intentionally violating a requirement. I mean,
I -- I don't know if we -- exactly how you do that. I
suppose, you know, looking back on it, the better rule would
have been to not allow a conditional improvement -- approval
is what I'm trying to say. A conditional approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. MOTLEY: Just say, "Get it done and we'll
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we'll learn that
lesson. But --
MR. MOTLEY: Right. And, you know,
hindsight's 20/20, too. And -- but I think the idea is
to -- this is a good example, but what do we do
prospectively from here on out? How do we choose to enforce
these things? And I thi.iik, at least for subdivisions --
and, you know, I'm going to have to do some looking into
your other questioning prccess, but in the subdivision
aspect of it, we have pretty much a standard set of
remedies. And I believe an argument probably could be made,
as far as criminal enforcements go, that each day that a
person violates one of their County-approved or established
rules, that's a separate violation. I think you could say
that every day would be a violation, each and every day.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But on the same -- you
know, say the situation is not knowingly or intentionally.
10-27-03 wk
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So we're back under -- we don't have the criminal; we just
have the civil avenue, and we get an injunction to make him
do the study. He says no. Then what happens?
MR. MOTLEY: I think, really, probably the
injunction would be more general than that. I think the
injunction would be to require him to not just do the study,
but, I mean, to comply with FEMA regulations. I think we
could, you know, order him to do that. If he does not do
that -- and maybe -- this kind of goes back to your question
a few minutes ago, what is the difference? These violations
of a court order or an injunction are enforceable by
contempt order, which is a little bit different. I mean,
that carries the possibility of jail for contempt, and
possibility of fines, and I want to say it's up to $500 a
day in fines for contempt of court. And -- and an order
perhaps tc say that, you know, you're not going to do
business; we're -- you know, shut it down. You're not going
to lease these lots. I assume these lots are for --
COMMI;~SIONER LETZ: R.V.'s.
MR. MOTLEY: But, I mean, like, overnight
people. Probably some people there on a more extended
basis, but typically an overnight type of arrangement or
short stay type thing, maybe similar to what's going on at
the State Park?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably more like
10-27-03 wk
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Guadalupe R.V. Park.
MR. MOTLEY: So, there may be some people
who --
COMMI,3SIONER LETZ: There for the summer or
winter.
MR. MOTLF,Y: So, it's a lease type of
arrangement, and not a purchaser or anything like that.
I -- so, I believe you could, you know, as far as an action
for damages we're talking about, go out there, I believe --
ar:d Frank may have some idea of the cost. I think the cost
involved to do the recommended changes FEMA -- that the
hydrological study indicated were necessary to satisfy FEMA
were pretty expensive, at least to the owners.
MR. JOHNSTON: Rip-rapping that creek and --
MR. MOTLEY: How many -- how many linear feet
are we talking about?
MR. JOHNSTON: Sides of the creek. You got
to put rip-rap on both sides of a pretty -- I don't know. I
would assume it's maybe as lonq as a total mile of linear --
it could be a half mile long. We're talking about a mile
worth of rip-rap, so I'm sure that's expensive. But I will
also note that the place out there seems to he prospering,
and well-used. And my understanding is that the owner of
that facility is wanting to come to the Court for platting
or whatever; is amending the plat for an additional -- for
io-zi-o3 ~~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
an addition. So, gee whiz, I don't know if I'd go for that
if I were one of the Commissioners, considering they didn't
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: David, if my reading
of this is correct, I can see that if you ordered him to do
that hydrology study and he didn't do it, then you could
have it done and recover damages in the amount it cost to
have it done?
MR. MOTLEY: I think he did the hydrology
study. I mean, I think he had it done, and I assume -- I
believe he received :it -- at least a portion of it. I don't
know if he -- he may have -- my question is this. He either
received the results of a portion of the hydrology study and
didn't choose to go on to a further examination and get the
full hydrology, or else he got the whole hydrology report
and maybe did some part of the FEMA compliance and not the
rest. I'm not sure exactly where the guy stood.
COMMI:~SIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a
hypothetical question, then. If you ordered an engineering
study done and they refuse to do it, could you --
MR. MOTLEY: I think so.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- have it done and
recover the damages?
MR. MOTLEY: I believe those -- I believe the
remedies provided by 232.005, it would be (a)(2), would --
i0-~7-03 wk
1
"~ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
„__ 2 4
25
22
would be incremental. I mean, I think if you say, "Okay, we
want you to do the hydrology study," and he has not done it,
"We want a copy of it to the Court." Where there is a
conditional approval, "Get it to us by two months," or
whatever. If he doesn't do it, I feel like we could -- you
know, I don't know iE he's provided a copy to Frank. I'm
sure he has a copy, but we -- you know, if it hasn't been
done, we can do that, I believe; contract with a licensed
hydrologist and find out what is the -- or communicate with
FEMA directly, find out if the recommended changes would
satisfy the FEMA requirements, and make a contract with
somebody to do a mile-plus or less.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we would like a
company to go out there on another man's property and do a
study?
MR. MOTLEY: With a court order to allow
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't like that option.
I like the option more of passing an injunction, make him do
it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather us not --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm just trying to
figure out what do you do if he never does it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you -- I think
io-~?-03 ~J~:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
..-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
when the contempts start mounting up, he starts going to
jail, he'll probably do it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I would.
MR. MOTLEY: In addition, then, that remedy
we're talking about, the action for damages to do the work,
would -- would carry with it the right to -- the understood
right, at least, to Enter the property to have that done. I
don't know exactly w}~at the classification of that property
is. I suspect it's not homestead or -- or any personal use
that would exempt it from a -- some sort of an execution on
the property. To say, well, you know, that's fine; we will
buy the property and, you know --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say, just to go to
another hypothetical, 'cause that one's very technical
because of what it is, suppose that someone's doing an
illegal subdivision, sells of_f some -- you know, builds
roads and sells some lots off of it, and doesn't ever come
to the court. We can -- you're saying, based on the
enforcement rules, that we can go to that person that sold
the property and say, "You violated the rules. You either
do a plat now and get it filed in accordance with our rules,
or we're going to file an injunction against you and start
filing contempt charges and put you in jail until you do
it"?
MR. MOTLEY: Yeah. And, you know, part of
10-~~-03 w~_
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
the problem with this is, as I've seen, some of these
subdivisions tend to be small, and they're sort of -- don't
require a whole lot in the way of road construction, and
they just sort of appear. And the County has no real means
to know exactly what's going on in any of the 1,100 whatever
square miles ~f the county; it can be going on anywhere.
So, we have to know something is happening, because by the
time you find out about it -- I know of one particular
subdivision that, by the time I knew anything about it,
there were probably a half dozen homes -- nice homes located
on the property.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Help me out with
that, now. When does the illegal subdivision become an
MR. MOTLEY: I think when they start selling
the lots. I think when they start --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if somebody's
got 100 acres out there, and they're out there moving
mountains of dirt, redirecting water and building roads,
that doesn't constitute an illegal subdivision?
MR. MOTLEY: I think if it's not a -- if it's
not a violation, that certainly would be very close to what
they're referring to as a threatened violation. It -- let
me put it to you this way. I believe it would at least
merit inquiry to the person who was the owner of the
~o-~~-03 w~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
li
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,,.,.,, 2 4
25
25
property -- record owner of the property as to what's going
on out there at the property. If they don't want to tell
you, then I think that's more ammunition to support the idea
that it's a threatened violation. Of if a person is doing
work that appears to be a subdivision, it's over a certain
size, there are -- triere i_s dirt work being done which
appears very much like roads, with areas in between those
roads that are -- or something that looks like roads that
would be suitable fo.r -- I mean, I suppose it's possible
somebody could develop a ranch and put roads just all over
and parallel streets and all that stuff, but I -- I don't
think that's the case on some of these. But we have a
problem in that, normally, if the sub -- if you catch it
early enough, you could prohibit that person from selling
those lots for development. When, the first time you find
out about it, there': structures -- maybe inhabited
structures -- already on the subdivision, it's a little bit
hard to say, "Well, all these people can't live in these
houses," or, you knoca, evict people in the houses. I don't
think the courts would go that far.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can go to the
developer and say, "You did ar. illegal subdivision. You do
an after-the-fact plat and follow all the rules and get your
roads up to standards, and if you don't, we're going to, you
know, put an injunction and start finding you in contempt
10-~?-03 w't_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,~-. 2 4
25
26
until you do it."
MR. MOTLEY: Right, I think you could do
that. I don't know what you would do about the lots that
were already sold and developed, but I think if they haven't
sold out all the lots, you could enjoin them from selling
the lot. I don't know exactly, again, not having researched
this in depth, but I don't know -- if a lot has already been
conveyed but construction has been commenced on that lot, I
don't know if the injunction could also name the lot owner
as a person --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would go after the
developer; I would never go after the lot owner. They're
innocent buyers.
MR. HART: Well, the lot owner is an innocent
buyer, but he takes a title in the title company. I would
think your title exception is going to say it's subject to
Kerr County regulations -- Subdivision Rules and
Regulations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's true.
MR. HART: A bank would see that also. And,
so, if they're letting it be done without any assurance that
it's in compliance, then --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Title company's --
MR. HART: Well, the title company is going
to have an exception that's going to say it's subject to
10-~~-73 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--- 1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
Kerr County Subdivision Regulations, I would think. Maybe
they don't, but I -- I would think they would do that on
these -- on these properties.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you identify yourself
for the record?
MR. iIART: I'm Spencer Hart. I'm an
attorney.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
MR. MOTLEY: One other thing that's going
on --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to pursue
that just a little further, David.
MR. MOTLEY: Go ahead. Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The damage that's
done doesn't necessarily occur after the first lot -- the
first house is built. In the case of somebody moving
mountains of dirt an:~ creating roads and all that, if
they -- it's already having -- could be having a negative
impact on surrounding communities. And this could go on for
a long time before they came in here and seek subdivision
status.
MR. MOTLEY: There -- there are federal laws
or regulations in place, and Franklin told me they were
amended. I thought it was 5 acres or larger that is being
developed as a subdivision -- or I don't think it has to be
10-27-03 wk
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'' 13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a subdivision being developed. It is required under federal
law to maintain certain sort of structures on that property
to minimize the damage and things like that. Is it 2?
MR. JOHNSTON: 1.
MR. MOTLEY: 1 acre.
COMMISSIONER
move a lot of dirt, you got
COMMISSIONER
MR. HARVEY:
Less than 1 acre; it's just
MR . Mc~TLEY
NICHOLSON: Over 1 acre. If you
to have EPA --
LETZ: Unless --
It's even less than 1 acre.
a different category.
Okay. It still has federal
rules attached to it?
MR. HARVEY: Yes.
MR. MOTLEY: Again, on the -- what federal
rules would apply, I -- you know, I'm not here to speak as
to that, but I know -- I guess what I'm saying is that, in
support of Commissioner Nicholson's statement, is the damage
very well -- especially in -- you know, if you have rocky
soil, not a lot of topsoil, I mean, you really could be
looking at some substantial damage; water diversion, you
know, silt up creeks, all manner of things that are
downhill -- downstream from this development. And --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What is the
incentive for a developer to -- to begin development before
he comes in for plat approval?
i0-~~-03 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
MR. MOTLEY: Save money, I suppose.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To come in to us before
he starts?
MR. MOTLEY: No, do the development first.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Say he's been
working on development and moving dirt for six months, but
he hasn't came in here and got a pipeline approved. Why
does he do that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's harder for us to
make him go back there, and say he has a 20 percent grade on
a hill and we don't allow 20 percent grade. It's -- you
know, he says, "Well, my road's already built; give me an
exception," and it's harder -- I think it's harder for us to
go back. We can, I think, but --
MR. MOTLEY: I think you can too. And, you
know, you don't have to approve the plat. And, by the way,
you know, it is required by law that these subdivisions be
recorded and that they -- they do have to be recorded,
assuming none of the exceptions apply. And so one of the
problems that I think is also being addressed by the very
fact we're having this workshop is that there -- we know of
instances where the Eirst thing we know about it is the
thing's already in and somebody comes in and says, "Well,
gee, I spent, you know, a million dollars, and just..." You
know, the same thing y'all are talking about. And, you
io-~~-c~ wk,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
know, that just requ,~res, I mean, I think, setting an
example. I don't mean going out and making examples of
somebody, but just at a certain point saying, this is the
way we're going to handle these from this point on, and --
and just do it. Because I -- let me -- let me give you one
story.
There's a subdivision, and it is just a
county road going down a hill, and veering off the county
road is what we saw was a dirt road. Probably wasn't a half
mile long, maybe quarter mile, and these were very deluxe,
custom homes being built on this property. They were
already there; the road was still dirt. I would say it
probably could accommodate 10 to 12 houses, maybe more, on
this little short -- just little spur off of the county
road. Now, I found out -- Nr. Johnston found out who owned
the land and such, and so I called up, let's say, a
representative of the owner of the land and asked him if he
wouldn't mind letting us know what was going on with this
land. And he called back and said, "Well, no, we didn't
have -- we don't have a plat, and we've never gotten a plat,
so what's the deal?" You know, I mean, "Why do y'all want a
plat now?" So, I mean, there are additions, apparently, on
certain little, small subdivisions, at least, that, you
know, nothing's ever been done about it. So, the path of
least resistance.
1n-~7-03 wk
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And I think saving money -- you asked what
the incentive was. I think to do something slipshod or do
something -- and I'm not saying that they all would; they
might put in an excellent subdivision. But if they are
below our minimum standards for a road, and if we're going
to have to er.d up picking up the road, most of these
subdivisions like this, my understanding is that it is
represented to the people, if not outright, that if the road
isn't on the county maintenance system currently, that it
will be taken in. And a lot of times it's a verbal
representation to these people, and they buy it, with the
assumption they're going to have good roads and maintained
roads, and then, all of a sudden, ten years down the -- or
six years down the -- you know, the time frame, the road is
coming apart and people -- somebody has a heart attack or
something; the ambulance can't get them out. Then, all of a
sudden, they come in here; they say to Commissioners Court,
"We need these roads paved. We need all this done," you
know. "Gee whiz, I bought this place and paid 'X' dollars
for it. They said it would be county-maintained."
COMMI:~SIONER WILLIAMS: What about a
situation like where we had the failing septics out there in
Center Point that you acted on? That's about a 2 and a half
acre lot with nobody knowing anything about it. We're
sliding from one dwelling to four dwellings.
10-?7-03 wk
32
'_' 2
3
4 place.
c
J
6
7
8
9
i0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MOTLEY: Structures.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Structures.
MR. MOTLEY: Only one occupied now at that
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's only --
there's no -- that's either -- if there's no change of
ownership for those tructures, that's not a violation of
our Subdivision Rules.
MR. MOTLEY: And those were strictly a lease
situation. This was approximately a 3-acre tract. I'm not
for sure the exact -- I can't remember the acreage, but
there was an original house constructed on there which was
used for lease purposes, and then two smaller mobile homes
and a good-sized double-wide mobile home had been moved on
there. The double-wide home was not a lease situation at
all; it was just the son of the owner of the property --
well, actually had an ownership interest in the property.
The other two were just -- one was eventually used as
storage; it was damaged during the move. And the last was a
small trailer that was rented. They moved the trailer in
and rented it to a guy, so it was a rental situation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No violation of our
subdivision rules.
MR. MOTLEY: I don't see it.
COMMI:~SIONER LETZ: Maybe in our manufactured
10-27-03 w}:
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rental home community.
MR. MOTLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But not of our
subdivision.
MR. MOTLEY: It's a possibility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I guess -- I mean,
what we need to do -- well, I guess one question, then, what
court do we take this -- or do you take this to district
court? Or --
MR. MOTLEY: I would start out at district
court. District court has the broadest area of jurisdiction
of any of the courts. They are the court of general
jurisdiction in the ~~ounty, and they have the broadest
jurisdiction of any. I would propose that it would go to
district court, because there's not -- you don't know
precisely what sort of. remedy you might end up seeking, and
they have broader remedy -- broader power to grant remedies,
and I -- I think it would be a matter for district court.
Now, I can't sit here and cite you a section out of Civil
Practice and Remedies Code or wherever that says that it
must be brought to district court, because, like I say, I
didn't look into it to that degree. But I would -- I would
go to district court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we can -- if Frank
Johnston comes up with one, two, three, four of these, and
10-~7-03 w}:
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we just bring them to the court and we say, "Here, County
Attorney, pursue these. We want..."
MR. MOTLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We want these to be
handled, and we want -- you know, whatever.
MR. MOTLEY: Request it to be done. And --
and I just -- the question hasn't been asked. I think that
that's -- certainly, pending litigation is something that
would be properly discussed in executive session, just for
whatever advantage a person might gain by the element of
surprise. But I think that would be proper to get that in
executive session. Say, "Here are these four," and file
them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. i~9c~TLEY: I believe that's what we can do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's the only
way we're going to get a handle on them, is if we pursue a
few and see what happens.
MR. MOTLEY: Mr. Hart raises a really good
question. I -- I would like to maybe review some -- some
deeds of properties that have been conveyed in these
overnight subdivisions. You know, we've been referring to
them as wildcat subdivisions; to look at them and see what
sort of exceptions are provided in there. You know, they
always have these ob~~~ious easements and visible easements
10-~7-03 wk
35
1
-^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
i7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and such as that, but I wonder what -- you know, I wonder if
they're just ignoring the requirement, the people who are
developing this place, to comply with our Subdivision Rules.
One of the -- I don't mean to get way off topic here, but
this -- this international border business --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: David?
MR. MOTLEY: -- actually has a checklist. I
mean, I'm saying beyond -- it has a checklist of things that
you must disclose. 'T'his is not within the -- you know,
there is septic, there is this, and you have to fill all
this stuff out. We don't have anything like that in our --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the reason for
that is because of colonia issues, that were true colonias
in the border counties, and they got that special --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They didn't want any
more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They didn't want any
more. So, I think --
MR. M~~TLEY: Absolutely. But, you know, it's
nice to -- you know, the Commissioners Court, I think part
of the reason we do this -- or part of the reason the Court
does have these Subdivision Rules is that we want to insure
county residents have adequate services and that they're
able to be cared for in emergency situations and such as
that. I mean, it's -- it's a public health and safety
'_0-~7-03 wk
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
issue, and if -- you know, if people can get by with it
without worrying about it, I think it probably, if it's --
certainly, if they are enforced, I think a strong message
will be sent around r_he county. I -- I question whether or
not it might bear some checking into, see what the practice
is now as far as these deeds. I would be curious to see
what they're doing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I appreciate it. I
mean, I think this -- we have a lot more authority than I
thought we did. Appreciate you looking into it.
MR. MOTLEY: Your rules are identical to the
State's current state rules. They're -- right?
COMM?:~SIONER LETZ: New ones are. The old
ones weren't.
MR. MOTLEY: The new proposed rules. I
looked at that; they're identical, and so we have every bit
of authority the State would allow us to. You have a good
question, though, about the revision, and I can't answer
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would appreciate if
you'd look at that a little bit as to how you handle
something that's not being done in an existing subdivision.
COMMI;~SIONER WILLIAMS: Like the one you got
out there.
MR. MOTLEY: Usually it's Buster that asks
l~-~7-03 w},
37
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
^ 24
25
the questions that I don't have an answer to. He's usually
the law professor over there that asks the impossible
questions to answer. So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, professor.
MR. MOTLEY: Professor. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
MR. P7OTLEY: Is there anything else you need?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. Frank?
MR. JOHNSTON: Couple years ago, parts of
Kerr County were designated into the colonia law for the
purpose of adding, I think, sewer systems, tying into sewer
systems. Would the same areas that were designated tie into
that Part B?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we're not a certain
mileage within an international border, and we're not -- we
don't qualify as an economic distressed county, either. So,
if we don't qualify under Subchapter B or C or D, unless --
I mean, as I read it, anyway. I think that's probably
enough on enforcement. The other part of the workshop is
review and discuss revisions of Kerr County Subdivision
Rules and Requlations. I think everyone got a copy of our
current rules with revisions. I think I highlighted, or --
me or Thea, one of us, highlighted in yellow all of the
areas where there are changes. And the verbiage in italics,
that is new or changed; maybe not entirely, but partially
1 0-~ 7- 0 3 w k
38
1
" 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
new or changed. And if it's underlined, that is to be
deleted, for the most part. I say that as I turn --
MR. MOTLEY: What section is that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was in general. And
we'll go through them real quick, page by page, and really
there's not that many; there's about 10 of them.
MR. JOHNSTON: Is there other copies around?
I don't think I got a copy of that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Truby had a copy e-mailed
out there. I didn't -- and we can get one to you. Truby
has an e-mail. And these -- we're not going to take action;
we're just going to pretty much go over them on the Court,
and everyone needs to, I think, spend a little bit of time
looking at them. And I distributed them to -- Mr. Harvey's
here, Mr. Hart; we can make copies available for them.
Because they're in color, it took a long time to print them,
but we, you know, have some --
MS. SOVIL: We can print them without the
color.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can print them without
the color a lot quicker. But, anyway, on Page 4 under Item
C, 1.02, I just added -- the difference here is the -- after
the word "streets," I included, "including right-of-ways,
easements" -- should be easements; it was misspelled. That
is not in state law. Everything else in that paragraph is
to-z~-os wn~
1
"' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
state law, but there's been a lot of issue as to what
triggers the subdivision, and based on the language in that,
when it uses the word "dedicated for public use," to me, if
it's dedicated, that doesn't mean that it has to be built
yet. So, by the fact that they're doing a right-of-way or
easement to property, that triggers a subdivision, in my
mind. And I think it's just -- to me, it was a clarifying
language to add "including right-of-ways or easements."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Including, like,
utilities? Easements?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Road. It follows in with
streets, I think. Good point. It needs to be road --
"including road right-of-ways or easements."
MR. MOTLEY: Road right-of-ways?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, road right-of-ways
or easements. And that's something -- David, I'd like you
to look at that, because we're taking it exactly out of
state law, and if we add a little bit in there, are we
following the intent or are we causing any problems there?
It's just really a way to try to clarify it. And I think
it's -- to me, it's a very difficult concept, the way it's
worded, because it talks about -- it says -- state law says,
"streets, alleys, sq~~ares, parks, or other parts of the
tract intended to be dedicated for public use." Doesn'.t say
anything about construction of a road. Talks about the use
10-~~-03 wk
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
of it. And if -- so it's not the -- it's not building a
street that triggers it. It's the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Intention.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the intention, and
that may be a right-of-way, it may be a deed, or may be a --
an easement to get that road built. I just think we need it
to be clarified a little bit more.
MR. HART: Well, I had a little problem with
it, because I can read it to say that any tract for the use
of purchasers of lots -- I mean, it doesn't necessarily have
to be dedicated. I was having a problem with it, the next
step of it. Of course, "dedicated" means designated, I
think, not formally dedicated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure. I mean,
that's why I say, to me, it's a poorly written part of state
law. But it's what we got, so, I mean --
MR. MOTLEY: There may be some cases --
there's been a lot of litigation in this area; there may be
some cases that would expand the idea of streets.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And it may be a
better way to handle this is to leave it exactly as state
law, then add -- add a paragraph below it trying to explain
the intent of that paragraph. I just think that this is a
paragraph that causes a lot of confusion when you're trying
to decide if we have a subdivision or not. And somehow, we
10-~7-03 w}:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2G
21
22
23
24
25
41
need to try to clarify that. My attempt was to add the
words "including right-of-way or easements," but that could
easily be done in the next paragraph. I think it is a
confusing area. Mr. Harvey? Any question?
MR. HARVEY: Kind of back on the earlier
subject -- oh, to begin with, my name is Les Harvey. My
local address is 212 Clay Street. So many people want to
hang all of their hats on the terminology, "subdivision."
As we sit here and speak right now, a piece of property is
either platted or it is not platted, and it should be viewed
in those terms. If it's platted into one big lot, and you
want to go back and snake it two lots, that's a subdivision.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
MR. HARVEY: Property is either platted or it
is unplatted. And we're talking about revisions to
subdivisions, and, I mean, it's too easy to get lost on all
of the ornaments you can hang or. the word "subdivision."
It's either platted or it's unplatted, even as we speak
right now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But state law doesn't say
that. This -- I mean, our language is verbatim state law.
MR. HARVEY: I'm not -- I'm not -- I'm not
suggesting we change the state law verbiage. I'm -- I'm
just asking for maybe a simpler mind-set on how you view
whether something is a subdivision or not.
10-~?-03 wk.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. HARVEY: Too many people can hang
ornaments on the word "subdivision." If it's unplatted --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not a subdivision.
MR. HARVEY: -- it's not a subdivision. If
you want to plat it .into one lot, that may not -- that may
not meet the definition, but somebody can give it a
subdivision name.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if you got
8 acres, and you want to sell 4 of it and you do, that's not
a subdivision?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, it is.
MR. HARVEY: Is it platted?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No.
MR. HARVEY: Then it's not a subdivision.
COMMI;~SIONER LETZ: Yes, it is. By law, you
have to plat it.
MR. HARVEY: Okay. By law, if you have to
plat it, then it becomes -- the trigger word here is
"platting." It's either platted or unplatted, not
everybody's own little individual definition of subdivision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I appreciate your
-- the way you're looking at it, and I kind of agree, but
you can't tell the public, if you're not -- if you're not
platted, you're not a subdivision, because as soon as you do
10-~7-03 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
something to it, state law says you become a subdivision,
and then you have to be platted. I mean, I don't like the
language at all that the State has given us to work with.
MR. HARVEY: I never have, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we have to work with
it. So, that's kind of -- it's hard to try to figure out a
way to make it the most understandable to the public and
enforcement and --
MR. HARVEY: That's the only reason I'm
bringing this platting issue up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. MOTLEY: May I ask a question of
Mr. Harvey relative to this concept he's expressing? I
mean, platted or unplatted towards what end? You said
property's either platted or not platted.
MR. HARVEY: There is either --
MR. MOTLEY: To what benefit to do the
platting or -- at that point? What benefit is it of the
person who owns the platted land?
MR. HARVEY: To get into the subdivision
process.
MR.	MOTLEY:	Okay.	
MR.	HARVEY:	Or to	give something a name and
1C-~~-03 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
MR. HARVEY: -- for perpetuity, whether
there's roads involved or not. If I have 15 acres out on
Cypress Creek Road and it's unplatted, and I want to go to
the trouble of giving it an entity name, I plat it into one
15-acre lot and call it -- anything I want to. I could call
it a subdivision, but under the state rules, it is not a
subdivision.
MR. JOHNSTON: Under the state definition, it
has to be two or more lots.
MR. HARVEY: I can call it whatever I choose.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you can plat it. I
mean, I guess there's no prohibition against platting it,
anything you want to plat, but you may or may not be a
subdivision. But -- you know, but if the state, by the
County adopting the .state rules, have tried to make certain
circumstances then you are a subdivision, then you're
subject to a whole bunch of rules, including platting.
MR. JOHNSTON: Once you do that, then you'd
have to follow the rules for any division from there on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me continue on.
MR. MOTLEY: I'm not --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go through -- on Page 5,
just a minor change, changing T.N.R.C.C. to T.C.E.Q. Page
10 -- Frank, you might look at this a little more. Under
(d), under definition of roads, we had quite a bit of extra
1~-~~-03 wk
45
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
verbiage that I've underlined. I don't see any reason that
needs to be included under a definition for a country lane,
so I just -- I've deleted it. Makes the definition a little
bit simpler. On Page 12, under --
MR. MOTLEY: Hang on just a second.
MR. JOHNSTON: The part underlined, you're
going to delete?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The part underlined.
MR. JOHNSTON: It can be back in the
definition or something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it's
needed. I mean, I don't -- I think it just doesn't mean
anything.
MR. JOHNSTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On Page 12, under
Enforcement, basically added the language straight out of
state law on Section 232 under Enforcement. And what David
was talking to earlier, it's all that language. That should
not be underlined. ill that italics that's underlined, that
stays. That's not --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, that's in red?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Should not be --
that's all included?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, 3.03 is all
1C-~~-03 wk
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
included.
MR. MOTLEY: What page are you on again? I'm
sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 12, 3.03. Some of
that is underlined, but that -- all that language stay, if
it's in italics.
MR. MOTLEY: All of the underlined stuff
does?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, everything in
italics stays, but that's just the state law that we talked
about under Enforcement. Part of that italics is
underlined, part of it is not underlined. None of it should
be underlined.
MS. SOVIL: Jonathan doesn't know how to do
edit mode.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then on Page -- on 13,
we're just deleting the reference to part of 232. We
actually wrote that language into the rules. Page 15 under
Section 5, we previously had language that there was no
minimum acreage requirement for a lot that had a community
or public water system and a community sewage collection
system, and we've gone back to a 1-acre minimum.
COMMI;~SIONER NICHOLSON: Why are we doing
that?
COMMI:~SIONER LETZ: There were some problems

1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
- 13
14
1J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
that having no limitation -- I'm not sure that -- on density
and road frontages, it caused some other problems.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Clustering.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Too much clustering, and
it was just more of a -- and I think it was -- I can't
remember which subdivision it was. We had one come across
that -- it was in Buster's precinct -- that it was just --
they wanted a real sma1~. 1_ot; it didn't work out very well.
1 acre may not be the right number. I think we ought to
have some kind of a minimum.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you live here in
town and you -- and you've got public water and public --
and sewage collection system that's not a septic, you don't
need 1-acre minimum. Why do you need it out on Highway 39?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't remember the
instance why we put it in here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can't remember
either.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We also did leave iri here
"requirement may be approved by Commissioners Court on a
case-by-case basis."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Essentially, we were
trying to figure out a way to encourage situations where
they would be clustered or they would have their own sewage
system, package plant type thing, or private water system
1 0- ~ 7- 0 3 w k
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
and not so many wells.
COMMI:~SIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. We ought to
encourage that, as opposed --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That was the intent,
was to encourage it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, you know, I can't --
I'm blank as to where the situation was, but we left the
option in there on the court to do the lesser.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't remember, did
you note 5.01.E change to T.N.R.C.C.?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's -- throughout
here there's changes, things like that of T.N.R.C.C. to
T.C.E.Q. need to be made. On Page 16, the added language
related to condominiums. We added condominiums. And when
you get into planned communities, cluster developments,
commercial subdivisions -- actually, commercial subdivision
comes out of there, gets deleted out of that paragraph. And
condominiums, it says, are not covered. They are covered
under this -- under these rules and regulations. Then we
added some language, "certain provisions contained herein
may not be applicable and will be reviewed on an individual
basis by the County Engineer of the Commissioners Court. It
is noted that condominiums shall be subject to clear county
subdivision rules and regulations and provisions set forth
10-27-03 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
in the Uniform Condominium Act."
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I got a question on
it. I want to say more than I know in the question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There are vertical
condominiums and horizontal condominiums. Does this address
both of these?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so. I mean, I
don't know. I don't know. I know very little about
condominiums, but we -- based on the Stablewood Springs,
which is a condominium, there was an issue because we didn't
have condominiums specifically set as they were subject to
this, that we needed to add that language. That came from,
I believe, David Jackson. The attorney said we ought to put
it in, at least in the reference.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This is -- that's
the thing I had in mind. The large lots and common
ownership, I suppose that meets the definition of
"condominium" somewhere, but this does mean that Stablewood
is covered.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. It's a
condominium.
MR. HART: Uniform Act breaks it out, whether
they're going up multiple stories or whatever.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jon? Section 5.01.H.
10-~~-C3 wk
1
"' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMI:~SIONER WILLIAMS: Under 2.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've got -- we've
got the water utility waste water disposal plan must be
approved by a licensed engineer. It may be appropriate at
this time to think about changing that to "if approved by
the Kerr County Environmental Health Department."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where are you? You lost
me.
MR . Mc~TLEY : 01 . H .
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 5.Ol.H, and 2
underneath it, the last sentence, last part of that
sentence. "Approved by a licensed engineer." I'm wondering
if you'd like to change that to Kerr County Environmental
Health Department.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, because I don't think
that our Environmental Health Department is going to be
qualified to -- to do a determination on the design of a
sewage collection system. I think -- and I think, even if
they could, I would :rather have it licensed; whoever that
developer is, be required to get the licensed engineer to
design it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To design it, yeah,
absolutely. No question.
1G-~7-03 wk.
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Design.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see what you're saying,
the approval part by us.
MS. SOVIL: Doesn't it have to be licensed,
period?
COMMI;~SIONER LETZ : I --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's got to be
designed by and a stamp put on by somebody that's licensed
to do that; engineer -- whatever, sanitarian.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We might want to clarify
that a little bit more.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. I just
raised it for possibility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And --
MR. MOTLEY: We want to get specific? Can
any geotechnical do that work? Would it have to be a
sanitary engineer or sanitarian?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We may need to look. I
don't know enough about that.
MR. MOTLEY: Engineer of appropriate
qualifications.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Licensed sanitarian needs
to do it.
MR. MOTLEY: But I think we need to -- we may
need to check that. That's a good point, Bill.
,o-~~-o? wY.
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Going back just a
little bit further i~~ that sentence, however, our water
utility wastewater disposal plan must be designed by a
professional engineer. And subject --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And built.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And built, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to
strengthen that a little bit. But 5.O1.H is kind of --
expands a little bit on commercial developments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 5.1?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: H. 5.Ol.H.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh.
COMMISSTONER NICHOLSON: Would you -- would
you say these -- these are tougher than current commercial
development?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Currently they were just
alluded to in the paragraph -- the preceding paragraph has
commercial development, so it's a little bit -- a little bit
more clearly defined as commercial. Not a whole lot; we
still may want to expand a little bit more. You get into an
issue when it comes to -- you know, when you try to -- when
you go into a commercial development, it's so hard to
envision what they're trying to do. It's almost better to
look at them case-by-case, but we want to have enough
language to be able to approve what they're doing.
io-z~-os Wk
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. SOVIL: Did you remember about the strip
mall? Remember that problem we had with the strip mall?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, there's no --
'cause, yeah, we have no minimum lot size. And, you know,
you also get into the situation -- I forget where that was.
Somewhere out on the interstate, wasn't it? Strip mall?
MS. SOVIL: It was a state road, but it was,
like, a six-store or five-store little strip mall.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. There's different
ways of, you know, how they do the -- they sell some of
them. You can sell the building or lease them and --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I know I ask too
many questions, but next year I won't have to ask a lot. Is
there a difference in commercial and industrial?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don`t know.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Say I want to build
an assembly plant.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's a valid
point. I think there is a distinction between commercial
and industrial.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we should add
probably industrial and development may want to be added
under other developmf~nt t~ make sure it's included.
COMMI;~SIONER NICHOLSON: I ask the question
'cause, philosophically, I wouldn't mind encouraging
1~-~~-03 wk
54
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
industrial development, so long as it can be done in an
environmentally friendly way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The real -- to me, the
important part on this is in 5.1 -- 5.01.E. There should be
no minimum lot size. We had -- previous to this, there was
a 5-acre minimum lot size, and it didn't -- or if it was
under central water and sewer --
COMMI;~SIONER NICHOLSON: I remember that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That was a real -- didn't
make sense.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we got -- you know, it
just needs to be looked at case-by-case, but it's clearly --
I think we want to be able to encourage or enable people to
do developments -- commercial developments in the -- the
other -- in the county. But on the flip side of that, we
need to be able to -- we don't want to water down the rules
anal have them start to call them commercial developments and
put houses on them. I mean, it's a -- and so we may need to
look at that a little bit further. That's probably -- on
these two, need to spend a little more time with both the
County Attorney and Frank has some input, and Pat has some
input into that as well. Page 18, under Drainage, this---
well, maybe you corrected it. "Drainage facilities shall be
provided and constructed in accordance with plans approved
10-27-03 wk
55
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
by the County Engineer as required in these regulations.
Drainage plans shall be prepared by a registered
professional engineer experienced in hydrology analysis, and
shall be signed and sealed by the registered professional
engineer. The registered professional engineer shall
supervise the installation and construction of all drainage
facilities and assure that such installation" -- can't even
speak -- "and construction was done in accordance with the
specifications contained herein." That's quite a bit
stricter.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: This would serve to
clear up the misunderstandings like we had with Stablewood.
COMMI~~SIONER LETZ: This says that the --
whoever is signing and sealing that, they better -- they
have to inspect it. They have -- they are responsible for
what they build.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And when the --
anybody's complaining --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't require any
county oversight beyond that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, there's inspection
requirements contained later on that they have to get from
a -- give them a schedule and they get copies of all the
reports and everything else.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
1 0-~- U 3 w k
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But we're trying to put
as much of the burden of the cost, anyway, on the developer.
This is saying that the engineer has to be a lot more
involved than just design some plans. Then, on the next
page, Page 19, under 5.06.D, added language, "This
requirement may be waived by the County Engineer for
subdivisions with legs than five lots," saying that
they're -- the County Engineer has authority to waive a
storm drainage plan if it's less than five lots. Doesn't
say he has to; it says he may.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: So, if you got 100
acres and you divide into 25-acre lots, you don't need a
storm drainage plan?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But if it's --
you know, it's on the side of a steep hill and it's, you
know, 50 acres, you put in ten lots, the County Engineer may
say, "Yeah, we need one." Puts a little bit of discretion
there; doesn't require it on the small one. Then F on here
is probably one of the -- a big change. "All drainage
structure installations and construction shall be inspected
and tested during construction to insure installation and
construction is in accordance with the approved plans.
Inspections and testing shall include verification of
materials used, compaction tests, grade calculations, other
tests and requirements as may be required by the County
10-27-03 wl~:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
Engineer. A final copy of all testing shall be provided to
the County Engineer within 30 days of completion of test
results. The developer shall sign a certification on the
plat that all drainage facility installation and
construction were done in accordance with the approved
plans." That's putting a lot more of a burden on the
developer, both from the inspection side, and also saying
that on the plat, he has to certify that everything was
built according to plans. And I think we probably need to
add roads into this same certification. So, he certifies
that the roads were i~uilt in accordance --
MR. JOHNSTON: Would the developer sign that,
or would the engineer who designed and inspected it sign it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I thought about
both. I think, you know, it can go either way. The
developer's the one that probably has more at risk, or maybe
not. I mean, both of them have a lot of risk, but the
developer is the final responsible party, to me.
MR. MOTLEY: The plans -- engineering plans,
Frank would have a copy of those and be able to, I guess,
look at that and say it is -- tell the developer it doesn't
meet standards, and then if the developer then wants to come
and sign the plat, say, "Hey, I met all the tests," Frank
says, "No, he hasn't," I think that would be a stop right
there.
io-~~-os ~,~:
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Well, I think the
-- I mean, I don't think we want to get in a situation where
we're challenging the credentials of an engineer. If an
engineer is willing to sign it and seal it and certify that
it was built to plans, and the developer's saying it's built
to those specifications, I think that's all we can do.
MR. MOTLEY: Sign and seal the plans that are
given to Frank, and he has those? Or does the Court get
those, or -- so Frank has those? He's not signing and
sealing anything on the plat itself?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the developer
should on the plat. Or -- one or the other, the developer
or the engineer needs to sign the plat.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Seems like we have
more strength with the engineer's seal, wouldn't we?
MR. JOHNSTON: We might have more -- more
credibility. Developer could just say it would, and what if
it washed out? Well, what will you do to him?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That seal seems like
to me to have more strength in it.
MR. MOTLEY: You know, I -- if I were the
engineer on the job, I would feel -- and there's continuing
obligation to pay him to supervise that construction to make
sure it is done in accordance with the plan, so that's a
io-~~-03 w~_
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bigger obligation on the part of the developer than just
giving plans. This guy's got to sit there, and he or
somebody under his supervision has to document different
phases of the work to be sure certain things are done.
That's going to be a more expensive endeavor.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very expensive.
MR. MOTLEY: It wouldn't -- I just remember
that, in the past, we had an architect who was supposed to
be looking out for our interests on a particular project.
We thought that included supervising the work on a regular
or day-to-day basis. He said, "No, no chance. You didn't
pay me for that. That's a lot more money." And on this
deal, I don't -- if `here's room on the plat, I wouldn't
mind having both their signatures on there, myself. I
would --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can add both.
MR. HART: Now, are you -- are you going to
wait to record the plat until after all the work's done?
MR. MOTLEY: The final.
COMMI:~SIONER LETZ: If there's not, there's a
bond that -- to do a -- if it's not done ahead of time,
there's a --
credit.
MR. HART: A bond.
MR. JOHNSTON: Construction bond, letter of
10-~?-03 wk
60
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Construction bond or
letter of credit.
MR. MOTLEY: Which will be released after the
final.
COMMTSSIONER LETZ: After they certify it.
But, anyway, it's a pretty big change.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 21, the first part
of that 6.03 is just moving something up to the front of
this. It was already in here, regarding sale of lots. On
the concept plan, taking out some language that didn't make
sense. And under preliminary plat, that's at Jannett's
request. We did not have any authority to sign -- to charge
a fee for filing of ~~ preliminary plat.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are several
places, Jon, where we refer to "the Court," and there are
several places where we refer to "Commissioners Court." Can
we standardize that and make it "Commissioners Court" all
the way, so there's no confusion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you don't ask me to do
it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'll mark them
up.
COMMI ;~SIC)NER LETZ : No, it' s j ust -- it' s a
word-search type thing. Many times they're in here, and to
10-~7-03 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,~ 2 4
25
61
get them uniform, I think there's a lot of times like that
we need to try to get a little more uniform in the
documents. I think that's one of them. They ought to be --
should be referred to as "Commissioners Court" for
simplicity.
MR. MOTLEY: There may be other definitions
that you might want to add the -- to add definitions in
general to this thine. I remember something in the past
that I've -- we looked up, and I think it may have been
condominium or something; I don't know if we defined
condominium in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably should add a
definition of condominium.
MR. MOTLEY: There was a definition in the
past that I thought we should have had in there, and we
didn't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also, if we do, we
ought to define commE~rcial_ development, industrial
development.
MR. MOTLEY: Oh, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about deleting
the fee paragraph?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jannett said we don't
have authority to charge that fee.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
'0-27-03 w~;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Next, I believe on Page
23 --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We don't have the
authority to collect a preliminary plat fee?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. We have a plat
fee, but not preliminary plat fee. On Page 23, we are
moving up where the drainage plan is required -- used to be
required to be submitted at final plat. Now it's required
to be submitted at preliminary plat.
MR. MOTLEY: Okay, hold on. What, Jonathan?
I'm sorry, I'm kind of lagging behind. I'm trying to write
as you --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 23.
MR. MOTLEY: 23.
was required. Now it needs to be accompanying the
preliminary plat. We're moving it up in the process.
MR. MOTLEY: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about -- let's
stay on that just for a second. What about -- I mean,
aren't we putting a possible extra burden on the developer?
Let's say that after Ltie preliminary plat, he just changes
his mind, abandons the project and goes on? But he's had to
-- we've caused him to spend who knows how much money on a
is-~~-o~ w~.
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
drainage study.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't look at it that
we caused him to spend it. I mean, he chose to do the
development.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we caused it --
him to do it early.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He could have done -- I
mean, I would recommend that he could do a concept plan and
come to the court and kind of get a feeling as to what our
feelings were. If he decides to proceed, I don't see how
we're causing him to do it. I think that the problem we had
was that when we get it with the final plat, it's too late
to make any changes. I mean, everything's kind of -- it's
the last minute. So, we need to get -- we need to get the
copy of the drainage plan --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Before that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, before everything
gets built. Because --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think you're
right. He can come in with his concept plan. If he thinks
it's going to become too onerous, that's his time to rethink
his deal.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Isn't that kind of
what we did here a while back with the proposed project out
10-~7-03 wk
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
in Precinct 4? They brought their engineer in, and saying
"what if," and --
worked there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, kind of.
COMMI:~SIONER NICHOLSON: I think it may have
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They went back and
rethought the concept.
COMMISSIONER
real question was -- is why
change it from the end to t
COMMI.~S IONER
COMMISSIONER
to catch problems, and
BALDWIN: Actually, I guess my
didn't we do it -- why did we
he front end?
LETZ: I think we just --
BALDWIN: 'Cause it's too late
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, too late to catch
it at the end, and I think some of the Stablewood issues and
other ones -- Stablewood's just a good example, because some
of the neighbors were more persistent there. I think the
same things --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Buckingham thing out
there, whatever it i:~ -- Buckhorn; that's a good example.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. But -- and I don't
know -- you know, we may get into that. We may have to
delay the preliminary plat approval a little bit in the
process. They may have to get more done before we're
1G-~~-03 wk.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
willing to do a preliminary plat. But I think it's -- I
guess the answer would be to developers, because they've
been harder to work -- they haven't, you know, really worked
with us real well. They've kind of pushed things off and
delayed, and I think that the -- you know, and a lot of
these changes we've }~rought on was the -- maybe the bad
apples in the group, not by that group as a whole.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner Letz, I
can see it will kind of inure to their benefit, too. Some
cf these, if they'd have been a little more precise in their
concept plan, they probably could have avoided some problems
later on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Next, I think,
was on Page 29.
COMM LSSIONER BALDWIN: How about 24? You
take that out because of the no fee issue?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: She didn't want it. She
doesn't want preliminary plats. She doesn't -- just -- it
was extra paper to her. Next, on 29, on a revision of an
existing subdivision, we had a requirement to get
restrictions and covenants of subdivision, and there's no
reason for us to get that, so we just deleted the
requirement for them to furnish it to us.
MR. MOTLEY: Just delete that?
COMM L`~SIONER LETZ: Yes. On Page 33, at the
i0-2~-03 wk.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
66
bottom, minimum lot Frontage distances. The numbers are
still there as a guide, but it's a little bit more --
explains it a little bit better. The distances may be
reviewed by the Commissioners Court on lesser distances,
approved based on topography, plot density, other mitigating
factors recommended by the County Engineer; just kind of
changed the way that was worded. Still does require they
come to the -- and the reason is, the way it's worded, they
frequently come to us as a waiver, and it's not a waiver.
'Cause it was applied formula, it ought to make it a little
bit easier to get that done, get that process through. I
think that's the last change.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One on 37.
MS. ALFORD: 45.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 37.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
asking a question here.
BALDWIN: I don't have a 37.
LETZ: I don't have a 37 change.
WILLIAMS: I got a 37.
BALDWIN: Compacted depth?
WILLIAMS: Yeah. I'm really
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Because you're
deleting it.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, that should not be
10-~7-03 w~:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
underlined.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay, that's out.
That answers the question.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Eagle eye.
COMMTSSIONER BALDWIN: What was the --
40-something?
MS. ALFORD: 45.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Forgot about these back
in the very end. This is -- relates to inspections, and it
just says basically that the developer has to give the
County Engineer a schedule of all construction activities.
And actual construction varies more than -- used to say five
days; I said three days. Basically, they have to keep the
County Engineer informed as to what's going on,
construction-wise.
MR. MOTLEY: Where are we at, again?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Page 45.
MR. MOTLEY: Page 45, okay. Inspections,
that's Section 8?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And it also gives
a -- adds some additional language that the -- let me see.
(Discussi.on off the record. )
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, this is -- "Should
0-~~-03 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
68
the developer fail to comply with this provision or begin
any drainage, utilities, or road construction prior to
providing such schedule, developer may be required to
perform any testing deemed necessary by the County Engineer
at sole cost and expense of the developer. The additional
fees may be in addition to any inspections and tests
required under these rules and regulations."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take out the first
"additional"?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Double redundancy
there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, we can get rid of
the redundancy. And that was added to strengthen the County
Engineer's authority a little bit. What's required here
will guarantee performance. We are -- this is on Page 46.
We do not previously, really, refer to letter of credit,
which is the common ~~~ay of getting a performance guarantee,
or what they would do for -- construction bonds are rarely
used.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we added a letter of
credit in here. There's a -- basically, where it's adding
the language about letter of credit, and then on 9.03, there
was just a typo under paragraph -- we're deleting Paragraph

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
69
10 and adding Paragraph 9.
MR. JOHNSTON: Would letter of credit also
apply to maintenance bonds? Or do they have to have a bond
for that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think -- we did
not add it there. We can. Is that a bond that's used? Is
that what developers prefer?
MR. JOHNSTON: I think -- yeah, I think
they've stated those.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, add letter of
credit there too.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To maintenance bond?
COMMI:~SIONER LETZ: Yeah, to maintenance
bond, add letter of credit language.
MR. JOHNSTON: Les Harvey had to go. He
wanted to add some vE~rbiage back in on Page 39 and 40.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait just a second,
Franklin. I have one more question here on 46.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That very last
addition there. Why would you add that sentence? I mean,
it says that it woul;~ be extended to six months if he hadn't
completed the improvement. Then you added that sentence.
MR. JOHNSTON: They have to provide another
bond for six months.
'_0-27-03 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~o
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, they need to extend
their bond.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. Okay, let me
go back and read that. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. It's just saying
that they have to basically extend their Letter of Credit or
bond.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: On 39 and 40, where it talks
about the specs on different types of roads?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. JOHNSTON: Les had an idea about putting
down traffic count numbers and some speed limit-type -- he
had some other information he wanted. I told him to type it
up and, you know, give it to me and we'll take a look at it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. JOHNSTON: Wouldn't hurt, I guess, to tie
down a few more details on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think a lot of it --
but, you know, I have a hard time -- when you're planning a
subdivision, how do you know the traffic count ahead of
time?
MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, I think it'd be an
estimate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You estimate it, anyway.
10-Z7-03 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
71
Then on Page 47, under Miscellaneous Provisions, I just
basically added this so we wouldn't forget. 10.03, special
provision for subdivisions located in the ET J, that we need
to get language in here related to the subdivisions in the
ET J, how we're going to handle that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's one thing I
had on my list to talk about. And I'm thinking about the
person who had to go through the whole process who was in
the ET J, had to go through the whole City process and
through our whole process. I'd like to solve that one way
or the other.
COMMI;~SIONER BALDWIN: Amen.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: City either gets out
of it or we get out of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: State law says we've
got to solve it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The problem is, it's not
that easy. I'm not willing to let the City have it, because
there are many areas of the county where the City has no
business doing it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And they'll never
get around to annexing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. You go way out up
Cypress Creek Road and out in Buster's area off Turtle Creek
and all that, they're not going to -- it's just -- you know,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
72
it's absurd to give it to them in all instances. And that's
why, you know, it needs to be -- it needs to be negotiated.
We need to do it. But I'm not willing to toss it over to
the City as --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's the chances
of their giving it up?
COMMI:~SIONER BALDWIN: Not very good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not very good, no.
MR. MOTLEY: One mile is -- what is it?
MR. JOHNSTON: It's 1 mile. The next
sentence may be 2 miles if-t goes over 25,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could be more before
long. But the problem is, the way the City has annexed
property -- if you go way to the airport, a good part of
eastern Center Point, then, is in the ETJ, because of the
airport. Because of. Comanche Trace, way out past The Woods
and all that property over there off Lower Turtle Creek is
all ETJ.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because of them. And
next is Whiskey Canyon. You can go almost to the Cypress --
where Cypress Creek goes under I-l0, way past the rest area,
all the way down that hill and out towards Harry Ray's
property; that's all in the ETJ. So I think that, you know,
you get into an area that I'm not willing to give that much
10-~7-03 wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
..-. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
73
to the City.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I know I'm preaching
to the choir here, but --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- that's what gives
government a bad name, 'cause there's no value added by
having those --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we need to try to
resolve that issue with the City. I think once we get our
new rules done and they get theirs finalized, then we can
sit down with the rules; it shouldn't be that big a problem.
But --
MR. MOTLEY: Are you talking about doing this
voluntarily, as in the areas that are common area, so to
speak, in a separate agreement with the City of Ingram, like
we had been thinking we were supposed to from the previous
Legislative session? And then, now that it's unarguably
dead, I don't really know where we are on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have to do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. In fact, I think
this Legislature set a new timetable.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They set a new timetable.
We have to come up with a unified -- one set of rules.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you do some
10-2~-~3 wk
1
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
research, you'll find out we're very close to being in
violation.
MS. SOVIL: 2005, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think 2005.
MR. MOTLEY: We had done quite a bit of work
to get our rules coordinated with the City of Ingram; we
were in pretty good .shape with that. And I think we can
pick that up where we left off. We just kind of let it sit
there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's the City of
Kerrville's the problem.
MR. MOTLEY: We haven't talked to these guys
yet?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've talked quite a bit
with them, but we're just trying to --
MR. MOTLEY: Who do you deal with over there?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ilse and the County
Attorney -- I mean City Attorney over there, those two. And
City Manager. And they get -- there's a lot of people you
have to talk to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But they told us no,
that they're going to take it, and they're not willing to
let us --
COMMI;~SIONER LETZ: Anyway, the last change I
have is on Page 48.
10-~7-03 wk
1
,-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.~--
25
75
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But I think they're
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We had a -- Page 48, a
Section 11, ar.d I just deleted that entire section, 'cause
we already addressed enforcement earlier.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's go to happy
hour.
MR. MOTLEY: Hold on just a second. On -- on
Page -- let's see -- 16, other developments, 5.01.H.3,
talking about driveways and roads will be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis. Construction standards will be
determined by the County Engineer. This isn't -- and this
is probably not the right place, but you remember we had an
issue brought up in Commissioners Court about whether
certain types of roads or classifications of roads would be,
quote, engineered roads? I remember -- I think Lee brought
it up at one point, .recommended in the west part of the
county, some roads that were not engineered and not properly
supervised during construction, and then, all of a sudden,
again we're going to have a situation where we're going get
the road back or get the road --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, there may
be. I think he was talking about roads not being built to
the specs. There's no question on our specs being pretty
clear.
1;,-~~-~~ wk
1
.- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
..-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
76
MR. MOTLEY: Right. But, I mean, even for --
like, I can't remember the -- if it was Covey Lane or what
particular road he was concerned about, some lesser
classification of ro:3d. He was advocating for engineered
standards to apply at that point. I just didn't know if --
and I --
COMMISSIONER LE`1'Z: I don't think --
MR. MOTLEY: That's what I thought of. I
don't know if that's why it addresses it or not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't recommend
changing road standards. I think we need to improve the
inspection, make the developer or engineer responsible to
construct them to the specifications we have. That, I
think, is under the inspection section. The reason I left
this vague on the commercial drives is that it depends a
whole lot -- I mean, if he's going to have 18-wheelers run
in and out of there, that's one set of standards I think
that we need to use, but if he's just going to have regular
vehicular traffic, that's a different set of standards. You
really have to look at what the purpose of the commercial
development is. That's why I left it up to the County
Engineer. My thought on this would be that we would do what
we did today at our next meeting, look at it again. If
anyone has any changes, let me know, and Thea and I can try
to put together a document that all the corrections and
is-z~-o~ ~~;k

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~-.
25
~~
everything's been reformed properly, and try to come up with
a -- a new draft version that we can put out for the public
and have a public hearing on. Hopefully we can have that
ready at our next meeting, and then we would have a public
hearing in 30 days and adopt new rules sometime in December.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Need to take any
action, then?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
MS. SOVIL: Can't, this is a workshop.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can't. It's a workshop.
And since the Judge isn't here, I call us adjourned.
(Workshop adjourned at 4:14 p.m.)
10-2%-03 wk
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,.- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-..
25
STATE OF TEXAS I
COUNTY OF KERR I
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 17th day of November,
2003.
,JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY : _ ___ _ _~'r~1~ __
Kathy Ba ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
10-~7-03 w'.K