ORDER N0.28530
APPROVAL TO REFER LAND IN
QUESTION TO COUNTY ATTORNEY
On this the 23~ day of February 2004, upon motion made by Commissioner Williams,
seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to
refer to land partitioned by a partition deed by mutual consent, and if existing access road
shall be upgraded to Kerr County standards upon acquisition by a new purchaser to Kerr
County Attorney for opinion whether Kerr County Subdivision Rules apply.
_ _~
COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST
-` PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORGINAL AND NINE COPIES OF THIS REQUEST AND DOCUMENTS
TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT.
MADE BY: Franklin Johnston, P.E. OFFICE: Road & Bridge
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2004 TIME PREFERRED:
SUBJECT: (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC) Consider whether Kerr County Subdivision Rules apply to land
Partitioned by a partition deed by mutual consent, and if existing access road shall be upgraded to Kerr County
Standards upon acquisition by a new purchaser.
EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON)
NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: Franklin Johnston, P.E.
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: 10 minutes
IF PERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE:
Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in accordance with
Title 5, Chapter 551 and 552, government Code, is a follows:
Meeting scheduled for Mondays: 5:00 P.M. previous Tuesday
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY:
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED ON:
All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate information has
been prepared for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court Meetings. Your cooperation
will be appreciated and contribute towards your request being addressed at the earliest opportunity. See
Agenda Request Rule Adopted by Commissioners' Court.

Franklin Johnston, P.E.
County Engineer
Kerr County Road & Bridge
4010 San Antonio Hwy
Kerrville, Texas 78028
Telephone: 830-257-2993
Leonard Odom, Jr.
Road Administrator
Truby Elardin, Coordinator
TO: COMMISSIONERS COURT
FROM: FRANKLIN JOHNSTON, P.E., KERR COUNTY ENGINEER
DATE: February 12, 2004
FAX: 830-896-8481
Email: kcroads@ktc.com

RE: Consider Whether Kerr County Subdivision Rules apply to land partitioned by a
partition deed by mutual consent, and if existing access road shall be upgraded to
Kerr County Standards.
This item was Item 1.3 on the Commissioners Court Agenda September 22, 2003, but no
action was taken after considerable discussion. The transcript is attached.
There is a case pending in 198n' District Court concerning a real estate contract. Both sides
are using the Commissioners Court transcript to interpret the will of the Commissioners
Court.
I brought this back to the Commissioners Court so you could make your own determination
and issue a Court Order on same.
'~
v ~ ~,,~ !
,~y,,f~ A tir aa~ru• ~
~ e.~d ~Y ~'t w tnr~r ~~in ~ .~~ f
9~y. ~ '~
••~ R~'~rr'Ma
i,~oa~,~tu~
time, ~.
f+~ • roY:r
-~.:1
pig. ~~
Cause No. 03-~42-B
COLVIN -RIVER HILLS LLC §
VS. §
CURT L. RICKERT AND §
Pt7LLY L. RICKERT §
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
OF I~~RR COUNTY, TEXAS
198 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID M. MOTLEY
THE STATE OF TEXAS g
COUNTY OF KERR §
IVIy name is David M. Motley. I am over the age of 21, have never been convicted
of a felony or a misdemeanar involving moral turpitude, and am otherwise competent to
make this affidavit. I am an attorney duly licensed and in good standing with the State
Bar of Texas. I am employed as County Attorney of Ken County, Texas. My address is
County Courthouse, Suite BA-203, 700 Main St., Kerrville, Texas 78028.
_-.
I was in attendance at Kerr County Commissioners Court on September 22, 2003
during the Court's consideration of item 1.3 of the Court's Consideration Agenda. A true
and copy of the Special Commissioners Court Agenda is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
As noted on page 1 of the Agenda matters included on the C~NSiDERATION AGENDA:
include items on which "Action may be taken. Agenda Item 1.3 was for the Court to;
"Consider whether Kerr County Subdivision Rules apply to land partitioned by
legal action, and if access road shall be built to Kerr County Standards."
On or about September 29, 2003, I received a letter from attorney, William Spencer
Hart, he expressed his concern that "the commissioners failed to formally approve or
vote on Agenda Item 1.3". A true and correct copy of Mr. Hart's letter is attached hereto
as Exhibit "B". Once the transcrigt of the Commissioners' Court's consideration of its
September 22, 2003 Agenda became available, I reviewed the same and determined that
while Agenda Item 1.3 received substantial consideration, no action was taken by the
commissioner's court on its Agenda Item 1.3. I so advised Mr. Hart.
id M. tl y
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID M. MOTLEY PAGE 1
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF KERR ~
BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally appeared
David M. Motley, who, being by me duly worn on oath deposed and said that he is the
affiant named above, that he has read the above and foregoing affidavit; and that every
statement contained in the affidavit is within his personal knowledge true and correct.
a . Mo
SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED TO before me by David M. Motley on the ~ day
of January, 2003, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office..
Notary Public, State of Texas
_ _ ~_
,~~5!'!.PVa DEBORAH TABAKA
:°.~ n NOTARY PUBLIC
`' '' STATE OF TEXAS
of ~ M-t Comm. Exp. 03-28-2bW
,FFIDAVIT OF DAVID M. MOTLEY PAGE 2
25
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
ther The $129,000 C.D. we don't touch. That's our
contin ency C.D. If there was a catastrophic failure of the
PSAP or a fire at Kerrville Police Department that wiped out
all of our quipment, that money would be needed to replace
that equipmen ,
OMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mr. Amerine, I ju
want to personall commend you for this budget. This is so
far superior to what e've had presented to us in e past,
it's just like daylight and dark, and I thank y u for that.
MR. AMERIN Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ALDWIN: Ju e, I move we
approve the annual budget -- 04 ann 1 budget for Kerr
Emergency 911 Network.
COMMISSIONER LET econd.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion de and seconded that
the -- that the annual pr osed budget f r 2004 Kerr
Emergency 911 Network approved. Any fur her questions or
discussion? All in favor of the motion, sign y by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vo .)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.'
/ (No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry. The next
item is consideration of whether the Kerr County Subdivision
Rules apply to land partitioned by legal action, and if
9-22-03
26
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
access road shall be built to Kerr County standards. The
County Engineer has asked that this be item be placed on the
agenda, and we do have a speaker who has asked to be heard
on this matter, and he will be recognized. Mr. Johnston?
MR. JOHNSTON: Morning. Property in question
is a little over 200 acres. It fronts -- only fronts
Highway 27, a small area, I think 120 foot wide. You have,
I think, a sketch in there that shows the dimensions of the
property, This was owned, I guess, by a partnership, and it
was subsequently split to the two partners by a partition
deed which is on file in Kerr County. So, the land's
legally divided and it has two portions, owned -- the Larger
portions, yellow and orange -- by the two sides, and the
common area, the access, which is the blue, is -- contains a
road, as such. Not a county road or anything, but just a
driveway-type road accessing the two parcels. The question
came to me kind of on a piecemeal process. They -- I got
calls for specific questions, and finally we went out and
we -- Commissioner Williams and I looked at the -- at the
site and visited with the -- two of the parties, anyway,
involved; there's three total. And we kind of came to the
conclusion that this has been divided, and probably the
Subdivision Rules don't apply. That if there's subsequent
division of each parcel or any of the parcels, then the --
then it needed to be subdivided and proper road built to
9-22-03
27
1 the -- to the property. But right now, it's just a
2 driveway-type access and two large parcels used primarily
3 for agricultural use.
4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think one point,
5 Franklin, that was brought to our attention when we met with
6 one of the property owners was that property owner number 2,
7 identified as Number 2, has intentions of selling that
8 parcel and his ownership in 3, and the property owner number
9 1 remains the same. So the question comes up as to whether
10 or not Number 3 represents a road that has to be brought to
11 County standards.
12 MR. JOHNSTON: That was one of the questions
13 he had.
14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As a result of the
15 fallout of the sale.
16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that one of the
17 questions, or is that the question?
18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's predominantly
19 the question.
20 MR. JOHNSTON: First question is, does there
21 need to be a subdivision plat filed after this partitioning
22 deed has been filed? And, two, does that road, which is in
23 -- you know, not to Kerr County standards right now, I would
24 say, need to be upgraded to the Subdivision Rule standards,
25 or can it be left as it is for like -- you know, like a
9-22-03
28
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
ranch road?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Johnston, if we -- if the
answer to the first question is no, the Subdivision Rules
don't apply, and therefore it doesn't have to be platted as
a subdivision, do we even get to the second question?
MR. JOHNSTON: I think that would answer the
second one also.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's my thinking.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Johnston, the --
the property identified in blue, which is the road easement
and agreement, does that serve any -- any properties other
than those identified as 1 and 2?
MR. JOHNSTON: No, it's just strictly -- it's
owned in common by 1 and 2, and only for their access.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it clearly is not
subject to platting. I mean, it's under H of our rules; a
tract is divided and all parts transferred to persons who
own undivided interest. That's clearly what they did. Had
a partnership, it was divided, and they had an undivided
interest. They split it up. It's not subject to
Subdivision Rules.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way we
thought it read, but we wanted to get the sense of the Court
on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. But as soon as --
9-22-03
29
1 but if they do anything, when they -- you know, if they sell
2 it again or do something, that road at some point, you know,
3 would likely have to be brought up, upon their taking --
4 MR. JOHNSTON: If it's redivided, right.
5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or if either --
6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even if the road changes
7 its character, if they deed that road to a -- you know, I
8 guess change the deed on that road, I think it very well
9 might trigger platting, which would require that it be
10 brought up to standards. As long as they're just the only
11 two parties using the road, as -- as the partnership has
12 always had that, it doesn't, but as soon as they start
13 changing ownership in that road, it probably would trigger
14 platting.
15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or if either property
16 owner 1 or 2 had an intention of subdividing, that would
17 trigger it as well.
18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
19 MR. JOHNSTON: So, if 2 sold his property and
20 half of his interest in 3, then that may -- or I guess we
21 need to decide today, does that trigger the road upgrade to
22 the minimum standard?
23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think if they
24 sell it as it is, but if they change that into a -- you
25 know, something with the easement, it could. If they're
9-22-03
30
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
just selling what they currently have, I don't think it
would trigger the platting, but if they change something,
whether by sort of a subdivision -- I mean, dividing it or
giving -- you know, I guess some other access to that road
beyond what it currently is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For a new owner --
parcel number 2 is up for sale, so if somebody who purchased
number 2, if they had intentions of changing it
subsequently, that would trigger platting and so forth.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only when they
subsequently did it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's what we were --
Commissioner Williams -- the conclusion we came to, but we
wanted to get the Court's conclusion also for the parties
involved. I think someone else may have a comment.
MR. ODOM: I do. I want to --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. --
MR. ODOM: I would like -- I agree if they
change it, but the wording will say "I would like." Can we
change that to "shall" change it? I mean, be specific that
the road would be upgraded if they subdivide that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think if they
subdivide, it's subject to our Subdivision Rules.
MR. ODOM: Okay. And they will, and they
9-22-03
31
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
shall. Not, "I would like them to." I just heard you say
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
MR. ODOM: I just want to make sure, if
someone came back in the records, that they are -- they
don't misinterpret that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're subject to the
rules. They're subject to all the rules.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Hart?
MR. HART: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. William Spencer Hart has
filed a participation form to comment in connection with
this matter. Mr. Hart?
MR. HART: I filed this primarily to seek
clarification. I represent a client that's in the process
of buying this property, and he doesn't plan to subdivide
it, but he wanted to be sure that the day he bought it, that
it was in compliance with the Kerr County rules. And I
think what I'm hearing today is there would be a ruling that
it could be conveyed to this third-party -- my client is Jay
Colvin and a company he owns, and that's -- that's the
primary thing, is he doesn't want to have to acquire it --
we do have a suit pending in district court where this is
the issue. Does it have to be up to county road standard?
And I think y'all are clarifying it that it does not have to
9-22-03
32
1 be up to county road standards when he acquires it. Is
2 that --
3 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what I'm hearing,
4 Mr. Hart.
5 MR. HART: Thank you, Judge.
6 JUDGE TINLEY: As long as owner number 1
7 conveys the entirety of his tract and his interest in the
8 road as it now sits, or owner number 2 does the same thing
9 on an intact basis, what I'm hearing is that that doesn't
10 trigger any of the Subdivision Rules. Some subsequent
11 action of resubdividing either one of those tracts or
12 repositioning that road very well could, though.
13 MR. HART: I see. Okay, thank you, Your
14 Honors.
15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No action is
16 required; just a clarification.
17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Colvin has a
18 question.
19 MR. COLVIN: Commissioners, I just wanted to
20 make one comment, 'cause I'm part of the subject, but I
21 think that y'all --
22 COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What's your name?
23 MR. COLVIN: Jay Colvin. Excuse me,
24 Commissioner Nicholson and Commissioners. This goes back to
25 Mr. Muller. And y'all have been told some things by
9-22-03
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Muller that I wasn't privileged to and -- and no part
of. And the Rickerts and the Beddicks I don't think were
any part of it, so it's not their problem either. But this
is also something that's going to affect a lot of people in
the county in time to come, so this has to be given some
thought, this ruling, because anyone that can come before
Commissioners Court or apply this rule for partitioning in
the future can just come up here and say, "I've got a piece
of property and I'm going to partition it; then we don't
have to subdivide it." And these Subdivision Rules have
been given a lot of thought over the last many years, and I
know y'all put in a lot of time, so this is directly because
of me that this is here.
And I've met with Commissioner Williams, and
also County Engineer Franklin Johnston, and there's a letter
that is not part of public record that I've asked them to do
this back in August, I believe is when we met, to try to
handle this situation. And this particular piece of
property is part of a -- a lawsuit now, because I've tried
to get the Rickerts to sell me the property according to a
contract, and that's why they -- and I'm glad that they're
doing this to get this cleared up, but it's going to affect
a lot of people in the county and these regulations if this
law is applied in some way. So, I'm asking everybody to
give that a lot of consideration. And that's the only thing
9-22-03
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
I want you to be aware of; that is part of a lawsuit. It is
part of Muller's plan a long time ago, maybe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't care about Mr.
Muller's plan. I have a question, though. Reading this
again and listening, maybe I misunderstood something here.
Okay. If it's a tract, as I read the rules, which is state
law, once it is -- if two people own a piece of property and
they go to -- they divide it any way they want, they have
undivided interest in it. If they divide it amongst
themselves, platting is not required, but once it's sold, it
is, 'cause I would think that is further development. I
mean, the provision reads -- I'll just read it. "A tract is
divided and all parts are transferred to the persons who
owned undivided interest in the original tract and a plat is
filed before any further development of any part of the
tract." That means as soon as it's sold again, platting is
required. And I think -- and that`s not what I just said.
That`s -- when I read it closely, further development would
mean further sale, I would think.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well --
JUDGE TINLEY: In its entirety? Is that how
you're interpreting --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I think if either
part gets sold.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: At some point, it
9-22-03
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
has -- through sales, it has to become a subdivision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, because if you
don't, what you can -- I think, you know, you could have --
you know, anyone who has undivided interest, you can divide
it and then you can avoid the platting. What Mr. Colvin is
saying I think is correct. You can kind of bring in some
undivided interest -- you could bring in a hundred people,
undivided interest, and then say, oh, we're going to, you
know, divide it a hundred ways, and then each one of those
hundred people can sell their tract, and then it can be done
a hundred times. So, I -- the only logical way to interpret
the rule, to me, is that as soon as that first sale happens,
you have to plat it, after the division. If they just
divide it -- divide their undivided interest, they don't
have to; it's not subject to platting. But as soon as one
of those parties that owns a new divided interest sells,
that it does require. Mr. Motley, do you have any --
MR. MOTLEY: I'm not sure if you're selling
what was partitioned by the court. If it's partitioned into
two parts and you're selling what was partitioned by the
court in its entirety to another buyer, that constitutes
subdivision, and have you to lay out the lots and -- and
such as that in order to be subdivided, as I understand the
state and the county rules. 1 think it would have to be
laying something out, lots and setting out roads, parks, et
9-22-03
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
cetera, in order to be subdividing. If it's sold in its
entirety, that would be a different situation, it seems to
me, and then if that purchaser wanted to then break it up
into lots, et cetera, in order to -- to sell lots for
subdivision purposes, it seems to me that would certainly be
required at that point.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, that's what we
said originally.
MR. HART: Gentlemen, Mr. Motley made a very
interesting point, that if it's "partitioned by a court."
This property wasn't partitioned by a court. This was
partners in a real estate venture dividing their property.
This wasn't a court-ordered partition of the property, and I
just want to clarify that, because I know one of the
regulations you're looking at is Chapter 12, Section
12.02(g~ of the Property Code, and that applies to a
partition by a court. It doesn't apply to a partition of --
by two individuals.
JUDGE TINLEY: Voluntary partition.
MR. HART: Voluntary partition.
JUDGE TINLEY: Of the undivided interest
only_
MR. HART: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think, in looking at our
9-22-03
3?
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
Subdivision Rules, the -- when a plat is filed before any
further development of any part of the tract, I guess then
the issue is, what constitutes development? If -- if we've
got a hole that we need to close, maybe we need to put a
subterfuge provision in there that -- that you can't -- you
can't use undivided interest to -- to avoid the application
of these rules to permit the requirement that you file a
plat. Sut in the ordinary situation, I think, unless and
until -- as long as these tracts that are being partitioned
out to the respective owners -- unless there's actual
development, as I understand that term, as long as they
remain intact, they can be sold on and on and on to
subsequent owners, intact and in their entirety. But once
one of those owners decides to engage in any sort of
development, as defined under these rules, then you trigger
the application of these rules.
If -- the problem may be that we might
need -- when we revisit refining or amending or adopting new
Subdivision Rules, that we need to put in a subterfuge
provision that they`ll not be utilized in such a manner so
as to avoid the application of rules by acquiring property,
an undivided interest in multiple owners for the purpose of
effecting a subdivision without the application of the
rules. I'm getting some nods of some heads; I guess I'm
being understood. Or maybe I`m just -- people are being
9-22-03
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
kind to me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we all want to
be nice to you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't necessarily
agree with everything, but I agree with you. As long as it
stays intact, it's intact. But once it starts breaking up,
you get, you know, to David's law language of alleyways and
streets and byways and highways and all that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a change of
ownership as opposed to a subdivision of the land; is that
what you're saying?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jay had his hand up,
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Jay, you had --
MR. COLVIN: Well, I just want to alert the
Commissioners Court, because I don't want to be a party to
something that you're not aware of. And I'm not a party
by -- voluntarily a party, but there's a letter
circulating -- has nothing to do with me either, but there's
a letter that i come in contact -- been given to me, and I
didn't get it till last Friday, but I did show it to County
Engineer Franklin Johnston. And, see, they were using your
name as -- that you had already determined this road as
9-22-03
39
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
legal, as-is. And that -- using Commissioner Williams,
saying it's determined, which is not true. But that's the
way some attorneys are interpreting this, and it's not fair
to you as a body, or Commissioner Williams or County
Engineer Johnston. Or the County Surveyor either, for that
matter, Lee Voelkel, who's the one that actually alerted me
to this a long time ago. He said this should be determined,
because he thinks that some people actually take advantage
of these things. And since I was trying to buy this land,
you know, he said, "Are you aware of this?" And I said no.
He said, "Well, these things can actually come back to haunt
you later. If the County Commissioners so chose, they could
actually come back and say you need to file a plat, and that
could be very expensive."
Well, I already had that in my earnest money
contract, that they would have to make it legal, whatever
the law was. Just prove to me that it was legal. So we
sought an amend -- not an amendment, a variance, if one was
required. If none was required, we didn't care. We just
wanted a determination. So, if the road is legal, that's
fine with me, or if the property's legal, that's fine. We
just wanted a determination. So, the sooner the better, far
as Z'm concerned. We've been trying to buy the property for
seven months or eight months now, nine months. But if it's
legal, we just want a determination. And I'm sure other
9-22-03
40
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
people are in this position. And I can give you a copy of
this letter; I don't mind.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Jay, not that it has
any bearing on what we're talking about, but out of
curiosity, what is the nature of the litigation which you're
involved in this property? What is the nature --
MR. COLVIN: I bought -- I have an earnest
money contract that requires the -- and it's a matter of
public record, the earnest money contract. Isn't that
correct, Spencer?
MR. HART: It is. The court -- the case is
pending in district court. And we wanted to be sure that
the property, upon his acquisition of it, was compliant with
the laws of Kerr County, the subdivision laws. And that's a
condition of the -- previously, the County Engineer had
indicated that we would have to seek a variance for an
unpaved country lane, and that there might be some --
MR. COLVIN: County lane.
MR. HART: County lane? Actually, it is
country lane.
MR. COLVIN: Okay, excuse me.
MR. HART: But at this point in time, it
sounds like that variance is not necessary so we'll be able
to resolve the lawsuit and close the sale of the purchase.
MR. COLVIN: But if you want to see the
9-22-03
41
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
contract, I can make a copy, but it's --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't want to see
it.
MR. HART: The wording is the property be
delivered compliant with the laws of the State of Texas and
County of Kerr. And he just wanted to be sure that when we
acquired it, he wouldn't have to then come in with some
compliance. And, at this point, I think we're of an
understanding that the engineer and your actions today will
make it in compliance.
MR. COLVIN: It goes back to this flag lot
development problem that we had with -- a concern I had with
Mr. Muller, 'cause I own property -- or my family owns
property on both sides of this property, and I've been
alerted to the possible problems, and so we just asked them
to go down here and go through this process. Well, then
they didn't want to go through the process, 'cause they said
it was going to take time. I said, "Just takes one
Commissioner's meeting to put on it the agenda and let them
read it, and then they go back, do another one." They
didn`t want to do that. They wanted us to buy it without
that. So we met with y'all, and you suggested amendment --
or a variance. And we thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I want to make a comment.
Our rules are exactly the same as the state laws, so if
9-22-03
42
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
there's a loophole there, there's -- it's a state loophole
that we can't close.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably true.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there is a
loophole there. But, rereading the state law and our
language and the terms that are defined, which is
"developer" and "development" --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could we not footnote
that section somehow?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don`t think we'd be
prevented from -- from making a statement of the spirit of
the Subdivision Rules, and -- and indicating that subterfuge
methods not be utilized to try and avoid the application of
the rules. I think the spirit of the rules is what you're
trying to get compliance with, anyway. Even though there
may not be a like provision in state rules, I -- I think
it's merely an expression of -- of intent that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But state rules are
pretty clear, and when counties tried to eliminate flag lots
before the State did it, they were knocked down. So, I
mean, the State -- you can't make rules that restrict the
State. You can change them, but that's the reason the whole
flag lot issue had to be resolved by the Legislature, not by
individual counties. It's pretty clear, our language is
exactly the state law.
9-22-03
c"~
~G .Z3-~~
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FORM
FOR
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COURT
Instructions: Fill out all appropriate blanks. Please print or write legibly. Present to the County
Clerk prior to the time that the Agenda Item (or Items) you wish to address are discussed.
Name: ~ Z% ~~' ~
Address: ~ ~ ~a S . ~~ ~ ~ ~~~
Telephone: O,_~ C7 ~ /yi _ ~~ 7
Place of Employment: ~ ~ ~
Employment Telephone: ~ ~5 ' ~~
Do you represent any particular group or organization? Yes ~No ^
If you represent a group or organization, please state the name, address and telephone number of
such group or organization.
~~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~~ -~
Which agenda Item (or Items) do you wish to address? ~. l~ 7 _
In general, are you for or against such Agenda Item (or Items)? Fo _ Against ^
Si ture
l~
NOTE: This Public art cipation Form must be presented to the County Clerk prior to the
time the agenda item(s) are discussed.
Once you reach the podium, please state your name and who/what you
represent clearly for the court reporter to accurately record who you are.