ORDER N0.29028
RESCIND COURT ORDER N0.28660.
Came to be heard this the 14th day of February 2005 with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously
approved by a vote of 4-0-0, Commissioners' Court Order No. 28660, entered May 24,
2004 in connection with Bettac/Rickert property located in Precinct Two, and said
property further described on the attached Exhibit "A"; is hereby rescinded along with
the opinion expressed in the County Attorney's Memorandum, dated March 30, 1994.
Further and pursuant to Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations No. 1.03G, the
Bettac/Rickert property is not currently subject to any platting requirements.
COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST
PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND NINE COPIES OF THIS REQUEST
AND DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT.
MADE BY: William H. Williams OFFICE: Commissioner, Pct. 2
MEETING DATE: February 14, 2005 TIME PREFERRED:
SUBJECT: (Please be specific). Consider, discuss and take appropriate action to
Rescind Court Order No. 28660, dated May 24, 2004, which required platting of property
located in Precinct 2, owned by Rickert and Bettac; and approve a new Court Order that
does not require platting in accordance with Sec. 1.03 G of the Kerr County Subdivision
Rules and Regulations.
EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED:
NAME OF PERSONS} ADDRESSING THE COURT: Commissioner Williams, County
Attorney Rex Emerson, Curt Rickert
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 as 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 is appreciated and contributes toward your request being addressed
at the earliest opportunity. See Agenda Request Rule adopted by Commissioners Court.
Agenda Item Backus Statement
This issue has been before Commissioners' Court on at least three previous
occasions.
On May 24, 2004, the Court approved Order #28660, essentially confirming then
County Attorney David Motley's position requiring platting upon the sale of one-half of
the property by one of the current owners.
Mr. & Mrs. Curt Rickert, through their real estate broker, requested a new
meeting to discuss the matter once again. The meeting took place at R&B, and County
Attorney Rex Emerson and Leonard Odom were in attendance.
It was decided that contrary to the opinion previously rendered by Mr. Motley,
platting of this property and the subsequent upgrading of the commonly-owned driveway
that serves both property owners would not be required based on the language of Sec.
1.03G of our current Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
Hence a new Court Order rescinding the previous order and memorializing the
opinion that does not require platting and road upgrading.

~ . ,
THE COUti'TY COURT
G~'
1:ERR CC}U1riTl`, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January I0, 2005
TO: Rex Emerson, County Attorney
FROM: William H. Williams, Commissioner, Precinct 2
As per telephone message I left today.
O11fl05-county attorney

Memorandum
~.
Ta:	Commissioners' Court
From:	David Motley
Subject:	Subdivision platting requirement and existence of any exemption to same.
Date:	Ivlarch 30, 2004
Our local ruled as well as the state subdivision rules set out in Cha~ter 232 of the Texas
Local Government Code require subdivisions of land to be platted. The local rules
define "subdivision." 3 It is clear that the 3une 2002 non-judicial partition of the tract of
land owned by the Bettacs and the R.ickerts was a subdivision under both the state rules
and the local rules. The exceptions to the local subdivision rules provided in
"GENERAL PROVISIONS & PURPOSES Section I" at 1.03.G4 and 1.03.H5 are not
applicable to the subdivision of the Bettaci'R.ickert property. The state subdivision rules
' 1.01 Subdivision Plat as defined by Section 232.001 of the Local Government Code shall be required to
be prepared by the owner if a tract of land is subject to the jurisdiction ofthe Commissioners Court set
forth above and is divided into two or more parts to lay out:
A. A subdivision of the tract, including an addition;
B. Lots; or
C. Streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts of the tract intended to be dedicated to public use
or for the use of purchasers or owners of lots fronting on or adjacent to the streets, alleys,
squares, parks, or other parts.
A division of a tract includes a division regardless of whether it is made by using a metes and
bounds description in a deed of conveyance or in a contract for a deed, by using a contract for sale
or other executory contract to convey or by using any other method.
Z § 232.401. Plat Required
(a) The owner of a tract of land located outside the limits of a municipality must have a plat of the
subdivision prepared if the owner divides the tract into two or more parts to lay out:
(1) a subdivision of the tract, including an addition;
(2) lots; or
(3) streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts of the tract intended to be dedicated to public use or for
the use of purchasers or owners of lots fronting on or adjacent to the streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other
P~-
s Section Q DEFINITIONS: A division of a tract of land into two or more parts.
a GENERAL PROVISIONS & PURPOSES Section 11.03.G. A tract is divided into two parts and one
new part is retained by the owner, and the other new part is to be transferred to another person who will
further subdivide the tract subject to plat approval requirements contained herein; and the owner does not
lay out a part of the tract as described in Section 1.02. C.
5 GENERAL PROVISIONS & PURPOSES Section I 1.03.H. A tract is divided and all of the parts are
transferred to persons who owned undivided interest in the original tract and a plat is filed before and
further development of any part of the tract; and the owner does not lay out a part of the tract as described
in Section 1.02.C.
provide similar exceptions.6 In short, I see no exception to the requirement that the
Bettac/Rickert property should have been subdivided as the non judicial partition did
contain a very detailed and carefully described easement, which in common usage is the
laying out of a road.
DM/s
J
~/
6 § 232.0025. Exceptions to Plat Requirement
(a) To determine whether specific divisions of land are required to be platted, a county may define and
classes the divisions. A county need not require platting for every division of land otherwise within the
scope of this subchapter....
(j) A county may not require the owner of a tract of land located outside the limits of a municipality who
divides the tract into two parts to have a plat of the subdivision prepared i£
(1) the owner does not lay out a part of the tract described by Section 232.001(a)(3); and
(2) one new part is to be retained by the owner, and the other new part is to be transferred to another
person who will further subdivide the tract subject to the plat approval requirements of this chapter.
(k} A county may not require the owner of a tract of land located outside the limits of a municipality who
divides the tract into two or mare parts to have a plat of the subdivision prepazed if:
(1) the owner does not lay out a part of the tract described by Section 232.001(a}(3); and
(2) all parts are transferred to persons who owned an undivided interest in the original tract and a plat is
filed before any further development of any part of the tract.
~ ~
\.~ ~~. ~~
E ._ ~. 1,
ORDER NO. 28660
SUBDIVISION RULES
Came to be heard this the 24th day of May 2004 with a motion made by Commissioner
Williams, Seconded by Commissioner Letz, the Court unanimously approved by a vote
of 4-0-0, that the Court affirm the County Attorney's memorandum of March 30, 2004,
which will require a platting of the Bettac and Rickert property located in Precinct 2.
FRUI''t K. UUFOUF.' GARUNE~: HTTY HT LHW FA:.{ NU. 211-732-6554 Feb. ~J~ ~'~~i5 CAS: 15PM P2
Comrttis~ioners' Court Order
Commissioners' Court ©rder No. 28560, entered May ~4, 200 in connection with
Bettac/Rickert property located in Precinct Two, and said property further described on the
attached Exhibit "A"; is hereby reszlnded along with the opinion expressed in the County
Attorney`s Memorandum, dated March 30, 2004.
Further and pursuanrt to Kerr County 5ubdi+viSion Rules and Regulations No.
1.03 G., the BettaclRickert pmPerty ~ not currently subject to any platting requirements.
Further, tfie BettacJRickert Road Tract is in compliance with Kerr County 5ulxiivision Rules
and Regulations in conned~on with roads, and said Road Tract does trot have to be
upgraded or modified in any manner.
in accordance with a conference between the parties and pursuant to Kerr County
Subdivision Rules and Regulations, it is herein notic~l that including but not limited to, any
future property transfers, changes in use, dr development, the property owner at such time
may be subject to upgrading the road to comply with Kerr County Subdivision Rules and
Regulations.