ORDER N0.29162 MOSTY PECAN GROVE PREMLININARY PLAT Came to be heard this the 9~' day of May 2005, with a motion made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 3-1-0 the preliminary play of Mosty Pecan Grove with restrictions to no habitable structure on the pump tract and any re-subdivision of Lot 1 will be restricted to access from State Highway 27, no access will be permitted from J.J. Lane to fixture lots. No habitable structure on Lot 2 unless Lot 2 is serviced by a community water system, shared well, or permitted well. ~ 1~ ~. ~~ COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST ~ ~l(P Z PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORGINAL AND NINE COPIES OF THIS REQUEST AND DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY TAE COURT. MADE BY: Leonard Odom MEETING DATE: Mav 9, 2005 OFFICE: Road & Bridge TIME PREFERRED: SUBJECT• (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC) Preliminary Plat of Mosty Pecan Grove Pct. 2 EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON) NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: Leonard Odom/Lee Voelkel ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: IS 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 prepazed for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court Meetings. Your cooperation will be appreciated and contribute towazds your request being addressed at the earliest opportunity. See Agenda Request Rule Adopted by Commissioners' Court. Office Use Only APPENDIX I Date Received by R&B ROUTING SLIP Kerr County Application for Preliminary Plat of a Subdivision LV I Preliminary Plat [ ] Preliminary for Revision of Plat Name of Subdivision: Location of Subdivision: Owner/Deve[oper: Surveyor: Is this part of an existing subdivision? If yes, Name: ~U..bC3~V15-~-t Precinct # ~' Phon ~~ - ti Phone(_)~- Volume _, Page _. AGENDA DATE REQUESTED: tYte~~~~~~ ~J ~,/~ Person(s) appearing before Commissioner's Court: l:..l~. X , 1. Submit ten (10) copies of Plat and Drainage Study to the Kerr County Engineer, for ""'~ Review twenty-one (21) days prior to Commissioner's Court Date.*• One will be forwazded immediately to the Commissioner of the Precinct in which the Preliminary Plat or Preliminary Replat Lies. ~, (~~ ~ e Received by: ~D 1 _<~ (Kerr County Engineer) Date 2. Submit one (1) Copy of Prelinvnary Plat to County Clerk and arrange for payment of fees per Kerr County Subdivision Rules & Regulations. ~' Preliminary Plat ~~[~] (~~Prelimin1 ary (Revision of Plat Amount Paid $ Signature: ~5~~"7'"`y~, `r~ ~ ~. S l7 5' (County Clerks Office) Date 3. Submit o~ (1) copy of Preliminary Plat to ,~r- ~-}~ / [ ] Permit application and support data for On-site Sewage Facilities y~° [ ] FloodF Plain information ~~ ~ /l ~ ~~~ Fee Amount Paid $ ` ®} ~~ Received by: "~~J ~:.~`.J ,~ Dat [ ]Not required ~i- '( (~`.~~vF=- ~Bet~.,. "• (1 oft) Kerr County Subdivision Rules & Regulations -June 10, 2002, Revision Court Order It 27597 Appendix -Page l7 4. Submit one (1) copy of Fitlal P]at of Headwaters Crroundwater Conservation District Fee Amount Paid $ •~ ~ M ~ Signature: ~` ~`- (I-IGCD Office) Date [ ]Not required Signature: (Kerr County Engineer) Date 5. 911 STREET NAMES (if applicable): The attached Plat is for Preliminary Review. Discuss with the Stuveyor/Engineer any potential problems. Signature: (91 I Office) Date 6. If Platting includes any utility easements or changes to an existing easement notification of the Utilities involved aze required for Preliminary Plat. Utility shall give Surveyor/Engineer easement notes_r~e~quijre~d. ~j,~ 1. Electric Utility: ~~~~~' ` t~J ~~~ ~~ ' `~ ~ " ` 1 ~ r' ~ ©~ 2. Telephone Company: ~., ~ ~-~' ~~'-"1 r (This shall be added to Final Plat if]vlylaz applicable) Fax copies acceptable. 7. If Platting has access to a Texas Department of Transportation Roadway a copy of Prelitninary Plat must be reviewed by the TXDOT Engineer. Signature on this form indicates receipt of Preliminary Plat, sign mylaz for final approval. Signature: /~ ~ y~ s-ns- (T7~OT Engineer's O ce) Date "* You must then COMPLETE this form and return it to the County Engineer Fifteen (14) days before Commissioner's Court Agenda Date. (2 of 2) Kert County Subdivision Rutes & Regulations -June lo, 2002, Revision Cam Order # 27597 Appendix -Page 18 ~, .~ 0 ~~~~ u KERR COUNTY ATTORNEY REX EMERSON COUNTY COLtRTHOUSE, SUITE BA-l03 700 MAIN STREET Apri126, 2005 Commissioners Letz and Williams Kerr County Commissioners Court RE: JJ Road/Subdivision Rules and "Takings" Dear Bill and Jonathan: KERRVILLE, TEXAS 78028 OS-023 The JJ road issue is unique in that the majority of the property fronts both Highway 27 and JJ road. It is further complicated by one-half of JJ road's easement running through the property to be subdivided and the fact that the third "pump" subdivision tract is not currently part of the unrecorded plat and will be accessed by traversing JJ road, a privately maintained road for which the third tract does not have an easement. The issue related to subdividing this property is whether the County's authority to regulate land subdivision invests the County with the ability to require the developer to donate land to widen the road easement to meet County standazds for road development as a prerequisite to plat approval. Mr. Machann, the developer's attorney, asserts that this prerequisite applied to this tract of land is a taking. The Texas Constitution grants the Commissioner's Court "such powers and jurisdiction over all county business, as is conferred by this Constitution and the laws of the State." Tex. Const. Art. V, Sec. 18. Texas courts have interpreted this to mean that, although commissioner's court may exercise broad discretion through implied powers in conducting county business, the legal basis for any action taken must be grounded in the Texas Constitution or statutes. White v. Eastland, 12S.W. 3d97, 100 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1999, no pet.). Regulations are generally held enforceable unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The purpose of plat approval is to ensure that subdivisions are safely constructed and to promote the orderly development of the community. Plat approval protects future purchasers from inadequate police and fire protection, inadequate drainage, and insures sanitary conditions. Public safety and morals are general public interests. Texas Practice Series, Part IV. Land Development MAIN NUMBER (830) 792-2220 HOT CHECKS (830) 792-2221 FAX (830) 792-2228 -- The Local Government Code chapter 232, County Regulation of Subdivisions, clearly grants the commissioner's the power to regulate subdivisions of land. Section 232.001 requires a plat when: (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 layout: (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 parts. Section 232.0015 states the exceptions to plat requirement. There aze not any applicable exceptions for the proposed subdivision. Both parties agree the plat process will apply to subdividing this tract of land. Section 232.003 states that "by an order adopted and entered in the minutes of the commissioner's court, and after a notice is published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, the commissioners court may adopt rules regulating the design and construction of roads. One such subsection states that commissioners court may: ' (2) require aright-a-way on any other street or road in a subdivision of not less than 40 feet or more than 70 feet. '~ The statute does not differentiate between publicly or privately maintained roads. The County may only consider street design and construction when it is reviewing plats. Edgin Bank of Tezas v. Travis County 9065. W.2d 120(App. Tex. Austin 1995, rehr g overruled)The road requirements as such are included in the plat process. "Road" is defined as a way or place used for vehicular travel, which may be aright-a-way or easement, however designated, which provides vehiculaz access to adjacent land. JJ road clearly fits within the definition. L TAKING Developer's council has asserted that relative to this particular subdivision any requirement for an increased road easement will amount to inverse condemnation of the developer's land. The Courts have consistently upheld the authority of both cities and counties to require the donation of land as a prerequisite of plat approval. In Crownhill Homes, Inc. V. City of San Antonio, 4335. W.2d 448, 460(App. Tex.- Corpus Christi 1968, rehr g denied) the court stated "the overwhelming weight of authority is that such donation is not a taking of appellant's property for public use without reimbursement. The exercise of governmental discretion to impose reasonable regulations as a condition for the use of property, or as a condition precedent to the subdivision of land, does not amount to a taking of private property for public use without just compensation." The Case of City of Corpus Christi v. Unitarian Church of Corpus Christi, 4365. W. 2d 923(Tex.Civ.App.-1968, no writ) cited by Mr. Machann concerned a church's application for building permit ,but with no subdivision of land. The court noted that there was a difference between requiring street dedications of subdivisions "as a part of orderly development" and the taking of private property for street purposes without compensation. The court went on to say that in subdivision development, the city is not taking private property for public use without compensation, but is merely regulating the use thereof. 4365 W 2d at 930. Our fact situation may be distinguished from this case in that we are dealing with a subdivision of property. In the case of Sheffield Development Company, Inc. v. City of Glenn Heights, Texas 1405 W.3d 660(Tex.Sup. 2004 rehr'd den.) A developer sued the city alleging takings when the city enacted a development moratorium and subsequently rezoned land. All property is held subject to the valid exercise of police power, and, thus, not every regulation is a compensable taking, although some are. The Texas Supreme Court cited the United States Supreme Court stating that regulation effects a taking if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. 140 S. Wad at 671. The analysis requires a careful examination and weighing of all the relevant circumstances. In the Case of Town of Flower Mound, Texas v. Stafford Estates Limited Partnership, 1355W.3d 620 (Tex.Sup. 2004) a developer brought action against the town alleging that a condition attached to a plat was a taking without just compensation. The city was requiring the developer to pay for improvements to an adjacent public street. The Court held that the condition imposed by the town was a taking. The Court stated that for purposes of determining whether a '~ condition on the development of property requiring the dedication of certain property constitutes a taking, the burden is on the government to make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development. 135 S W.3d at . In that our road is part of the subdivided land, our fact situation is distinguished from Flower Mound. II. TEST To determine whether government regulation of property "goes too far so as to be recognized as a taking", the Supreme Court has employed different analytical structures depending on the nature and effect of the regulation involved. The Nollan and Dolan cases involved exactions imposed by the government as a condition of its approval of land development. 135 5 W.3rcl at 625 citing Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 827-829 (1987); Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374 (1994). The Texas Supreme Court restates the rule of Nollan and Dolan as follows: conditioning government approval of a development of property on some exaction is a compensable taking unless the condition (1) bears an essential nexus to the substantial advancement of some legitimate government interest and (2) is roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed. development. This test as applied in Dolan considers whether dedications demanded as conditions of development are proportional to the development's anticipated impacts. The Court has previously detemvned that there was no reason to differentiate between dedicatory and non-dedicatory exactions. Nor is there any suggestion that conditioning - development of property on improvements to abutting roadways is somehow more restrictive on the use of property than a dedication of property. 135S. W.3d at 636 citing Lambert v. Ciry and --- County of San Francisco, 529 U.S. 1045, 1047-1049(2000). III. APPLICATION There is clearly a legitimate county interest in orderly development providing for the safety, health and welfare of Ken County citizens. The subdivision rules are merely a statutorily authorized regulatory response to the needs created by the developer's use ofthe land. As I understand the facts, the current road makes it difficult at best for fire, ambulance and police to serve the needs of the residents. The road has become essentially a public road privately maintained. The facts of this case necessitate an analysis of the second prong of the Court's test: whether the requested dedication of additional road easement is proportional to the projected impact on the proposed development or subdivision. The proposed subdivision envisions three tracts of property. The future owners of the 1.8 and 12.6 acres tracts will have equal access from either JJ road or State Highway 27 and could place driveways from either road. The third tract is located at the end of JJ road. It does not currently have a deeded easement to JJ road. The requested road easement donation is for 30' wide running the length of the 1.8 and 12.6 acre tracts. This quantity of land is approximately 1.19 acres. Despite the access to Highway 27, I would assert that all three future property owners would benefit from the potential new road. It is my understanding that the pump tract owner's sole access is via JJ road. All three owners will benefit from increased personal access and safety vehicle access to their properties. In the event the 12.6 acres is further divided the burden on JJ road could be further increased. The fact issue for the court to decide is whether the 1.19 acres is proportional to the benefit derived by the property owners. The commissioners court may refuse to approve a plat if it does not meet the requirements prescribed by or under this chapter or if any bond required under this chapter is not filed with the county. Section 232.002(a) The commissioner's court may also approve a variance when undue hardship will result from requiring strict compliance. When considering the variance the court shall take into account the nature of the proposed land use, existing use of the land, the number of persons who will reside there, and the probable effects of such variance upon traffic conditions and upon public health, safety, convenience and welfare in the vicinity. The county's variance policy listed in Section IV of county regulations lists specific findings for the court to grant such variance. So long as the court is consistent and not arbitrary or capricious in its application of variances, a variance will not effect the integrity of the program. There are a number of questions including but not limited to the following that I believe are relevant to the court's decision. (1) Whether the purchaser of the 12+ acre tract is the same individual or is associated with the individual developing the land across Highway 27; (2) Whether -- the pump tract has any easement for human access to the Guadalupe River; (3) Whether the pump tract is to be used for a community water system for the subdivided land on the other side of Highway 27; (4} Whether the pump tract may be accessed by any route other than JT road; (5) Whether the owner of the pump tract would be willing to agree to a ban on granting access to the Guadalupe River through that tract; (6} Whether the developer would grant an easement for a culdesac at the end of JT road; (7) Whether 1.8 acre tract can be designated "non-buildable" unless there is a community water system (8) Whether the pump tract is declazed non-buildable. /~~r Rex Emerson cc: Dwaine Machann Leonard Odom Lee Voelkel DWAINE MACHANN ATTORNEY AT LAW 222 Sidney Baker South, Suite 436 Kerrville, Texas 75028-5983 Telephone (830)895-3950 Telefax (830) 895-5200 E-mail: dmachann@ktc.com April 14, 2005 Mr. Rex Emerson County Attorney BA-103 Courthouse 700 Main Street Kerrville, Texas 78028 Re: Subdivision Plat/Robert L. Mosty, Jr./State Highway No. 27/14.7 Acres Deaz Rex: This letter is with regard to the Commissioners' Court request for a legal opinion from your office as to whether the County can require widening of JJ Lane to 60' as a condition to approval of the subdivision plat. I am of the opinion of the County does not have the legal authority to make such a requirement. INVERSE CONDEMNATION Such an action would constitute an inverse condemnation. The County, in effect, is requiring a dedication of land and taking property without compensation. The requirement of dedication of land without compensation is prohibited by the Federal and State Constitutions unless it is a valid exercise of the police power. Generally, private property may not be taken for public purposes without adequate compensaflon. The Commissioners Court desires to impose an additional 30' road easement under the premise. that the road may be taken over by the County in the future as a public roadway; and by requiring the additional 30' roadway easement, the County will have a 60' roadway in place, satisfying County regulations at no cost to the County. The instant facts fall within the parameters of San Antonio River Authority vs. Garrett Brothers. 528 S W 2d 266 (Court of Anneals San Antonio 1975 writ ref d nrel. That case holds that a government authority can not use its governmental powers to gain or acquire property in its own right, thus obtaining its own enrichment at the expense of individual property owners. The San Antonio River Authority case is supported by several subsequent Texas Supreme Court cases. See Texas vs. Biggaz, 873 S.W. 2d 11 (Supreme Court 1994); Steele vs. City of Houston, 603 S.W. 2d 786 (Supreme Court 1980); City of Austin vs. Teague, 570 S.W. 2d 389 (Supreme Court 1978); Houston vs. Kolb, 982 S.W. 2d 949 (Court of Appeals Houston 1999). .._ It is my opinion that Mr. Mosty would be entitled to compensation for the inverse condemnation, attorneys fees, and possibly exemplary damages. I do not believe that our facts are distinguishable from the above referenced court decisions. Nevertheless, if you believe for some reason that those cases and facts are distinguishable, then I refer you to two (2) other Texas cases: The City of Co11eQe Station vs. Turtle Rock Coro., 680 S.W. 2d 802 (Supreme Page 2 Court 1984) and The City of Comus Christi vs. Unitarian Church of Corous Christi, 436 S.W. 2d 923 (Court of Appeals 1968, writ reed, nre). Tn determining the reasonableness of a dedication required in relation to a new subdivision, the Court must look at both whether the development has increased the need for the land use and whether residents of the subdivision will benefit from the dedicated use (see The City of Colleee Station vs. Tulle Rock Coro). In the instant fact situation, the "residents of the subdivision" (the proposed owners of the 1.8 and 12.6 acres tracts) have direct primary access on State Highway No. 27; the development (2 "lots") does not increase the need for expansion of JJ Lane from 30' to 60 ; and the residents of the subdivision (2 owners) will not receive a benefit from a 60' right-of--way for JJ L.ane. Also note that The American Law Institute, as referenced in the Turtle Rock case, supports this "reasonable connection" analysis: "The Code adopts the position that developers may be required to provide streets and utilities but only by quality or quantity reasonably necessary to the proposed development....Similazly, a developer may be required to provide land or fees for parks or other open space. Again, however, the Code limits the extent of such demands reasonably allocable to the development - -measured in terms of the need created by the development". The Commissioners Court would be requiring the property owner to dedicate its property for a public purpose without compensation, which is contrary to both the Federal and State Constitutions. As stated in The City of Comus Christi case, "There is a difference concerning statutorily authorized dedication of streets in subdivisions (emphasis added), and exercise of the police power to take private property for street purposes without compensation." If you have ariy questions concerning this lettei, please let me know. Sincerely, Dwaine Machann DM/lh cc: Robert L. Mosty, Jr. Lee Voelkel Fr~ma'OELKEL ENGINEE~;In'a 257 X577 05,~t72/2005 1'>:~2 ~~~9 P.OC'1'OiJ3 Fax Transmittal ~'o: ~ ^ ~/f9lnt ~ por Rovlew ^Please Comment Measape: Farm a~te.~~? ~~~ From: ~~~'~~ +--~ Number ofi pslges• ~ Including Cover Shset Any Preblem Reeelvtnp Thls Transrnl!!el Please Call Me at 630-2b7-3313 Frum:~d!7ELKEL Ehta1C~EER1hdG VC/V(./~V VO u.vo rxn naa ~~:a cane ltex Emerson Kan County Attnmey County Court Please, Suits SA-103 700 Main Street Kamille, Texas 78028 Apri129, 2005 f)eaz Mr. Hmoryan, -5%337? 05/02/2005 ]t.32 X429 P.002i003 ,u,v~a•~ a yw a~sue uu~~y Wr uvc i eta in receipt of your letter dated April 7b, 2005 addressed to Commisriot-ers Lea and Williams CggCettl3ng JJ Lana Road in Center Point. "This letter la written lII order to aaawer Your questions posed in the last patagraplt. Coaserning your spealGc questions, I submit the foUawing: T. Whether the purchaser of the 12+ acre tract Is the satna individual or is associated with the individual developing the laud across TLigbway 37? ; To my knowledge, they are not associated or tlu same individual. 2. WhaUtar the pump tract has any aaeement For human access to the Guadalupe R#ver? Amwer. If your qusafien way meant to ask if anyone ono else has an of'f'icial saSe7paaat through my property rA the river, the answer is No. 3, whether the pump tract is to be used for a community water system for the subdivIdsd lead on the other side nfNighway 277 now .Tao. 4, ~Vhethert the pump tract may be accessed by nay route other rhea JJ Lane7 ~#msever: No S. Whether the owner of the pu¢tp taaot twuld be willing to ngrea to a boa on gra~>hng access to the Guadalupe River through this treat? away: No. I want W retain the acme acoese and property rights as anyone owning property along the Guadalupe River es well as the other property owners along JJ Latta. 6. Whether the deva[opsr would groat an easement For a cct-dc-saa at the end of JJ Larto. wa .Yes. !iris tia.9 already been agreed to and the preliminary plat prepared by Voalkel &gg[nesring shows a 50 fear radius eul-de•sac. 7, Whether the 1.8 acre ttaot cea be deyigaated `iron-buildable" unless there is a community water system? An>R`ar: B~cd upon. discusaians between Les V oelkel cad the buyers of tills traat, it Tm mY understanding that rho buyers !rave testiatively agreed to wording that would label tbir tract es "no habi*abie structure", Please eee wordittr on the prelimicary plot. From:VOE'~_KEL ENGINEERING ~5? 3377 05/0~~2a~5 l?:33 #4'29 F'.003/003 Vbr uY/LVUU LL~uq ClLA. bJV YVO La Jb qu Vtl!'u ~ Vkl'1tl11Y XW LLy yVVVJ 8, Whether the pomp tract is declared non-bnildabla2 Awwcr: I would agiroa to label this txtct as `ho habitable rttvcttst" with the same wording ~ is on the tract for the 1.8 tares. I am providing the following additional infotmatign in order to attempt to answer any antskad questions end movs tho plating process forward. I sm retaining ownership of this water diversion point because I am the owner of two water une permits through the Texas Commission cn Environmental Qtblity. The of&cial divers{ota point for these permits is on this tract. I have no immediate or foreseeable use for this tract odtar than to retain a ea a water diversion point essooieted with the permits, 1 plan to retain ownership of this tract w an offtcint dlnersion point as lone as l own these water permib. i wiU he out of the USA from May 5 through May 26, so plesac let me know ASAP if you have orsy furtbar questions. Cc: Commiss'roner Lett Cotttm[ssloaer Williams I.ee VoeLw! pwtin~e Machsan Sinoar®IS'r ~~~ Robert L. arty .tr. GENERAL NOTES t. Tha property shown hereon is in the Center Point Independent $ChO01 n19t11Ct. 2. The Droperfy shown hereon is in Flood Zones A and X according to the Flood bsuronce Rate Map for Kerr County. Texos. Mop No.: 48265C0300E Mop Date: July tg, 2000 3. Owner: Robert Mosty. Jr. 223 to Costo Montgomery. T% 77356 Surveyor. Lee C. Vcelkel 212 Clay St. Kerrville, TX 78028 4. Utility Companies: Bondero Electric Coop Hill Country Telephone Coop 5. No habitable structure will be aliowetl on Ld 2 unless the bt is serviced by a community water by a community water system shared well or permitted well. 6. Elevations shown hereon are assumed. +{`~ tt is understood ana agreed that perpetual eoeemenis ore reserved for the InetollaUon and rtaintenance of utgitlea and all necaesory apDUrtanancee thereto, whother inelolied in the ale upon the aurfoca or undsr- ground, abrp and wiMin ten legit (10~ of the rear, front and aide Ones of oN Iota and/or troth and in tfw rdraete, allays, Doulevorde, base, and roods of Nie euDdivisbn. Nothing shall De placed or ppeertnittetl to amain within Ne easement areas which may damage or interfere with the lrretallotion and mobtenanae - of uNiliea. TM omernerit area of eoch lot and oll Improvements whhin It shall be mdntained ty the owner ~I of the bt, except for those faclligee for whian an authority or uNlly company b reaponelble. utility cpm- Qoniee or their empbyaea shall trove oU of rho rights and loenetita necessory or convenient for the toll en- rcyment Mthe rights herein granted, including but riot limited to the tree right of ingrma fn and egrose from the right-o/-roy and eaaemard, and the riyM from Gme to time to cut all Dees, urMargrowth and other obelrucliona that moY injuro, endongar or mterfme with the opemtion oS said utility fadGtuts. The easement rights heroin ravened indude the privGeya of orwhoring any support cables or o er dav(ces out- side said easement when deemed rlecaaeory by the uUFity to sup ort egwpment within said easement cad the right to install w'uee andJor CaDbs ova some portions of ea~bte ana/ar tmcte not within sold aoee- ment so bay os ouch Items do not prevent the ConetNMlon of bugdinge on any of the lots and/or fmda OI th16 OUDdNIeIOn. LUINE TNiiE ono rows aam aeso rruea _'~_ 0.4 ACRE H111 to Trrice \ 04/28/9531 / 1.00 ACRE / / \ Novick to 9N9ovick Vc1.07/03/gB46/ / / yo / o' k~M / ~~ ~`t' 5 / / / a uMerstaod and agreetl that perpetual eoeements are reserved far the betallaGon and molntenance of idea oM all neceeeory appurtangncea lhareto, whsther irretglletl in tho alr, upon the suAOCe or under- und, plorq ontl MMin ten feet (10~ Ot the rear, front and aide goes of oU lots and/or tracts qM In streeb, alloys, tautevor~, lanes, and roods of thin subdiviabn. Nothing shall tre piacetl or ppaarmittetl remain wihin the easemm~t arras which may tlomage or inteAaro wiN Me IrretoUWan ontl molntenonee uUlHlea. The omemerd aroa of each bt and all Impravementa wRhfn It shall be malntainad by the owner Me bf. e.cept for Wow facil'dka for which an authority or uWty company b rmpgnaible. Wlhy com- iiee or the'e smpbyass shall have oU of the dghts and bsnsFib neees~ory or convenient for the full en- mant of the rtg to Mrein granted, ineludin9 but rw! Ilmited fa the tree right of ingress fn and egrean n the right-of-raY and eaaemerrt, and the right from Urtw to lima to cut oll trees, urMargrowGl ontl er obahuctioru that may injuro, endanger or mteAero with the operation of said utility fgeilitiea. Tha rmant dghta heroin reined include the priNbga of ondiaring any support sables or other devices oul- e said eosement when deemed necessary by the uGidy to support equipment within said eoeement and right to install wires and/or aa61w over some portions of wid bte and/or tracts not witnin eoid sosa- nt so bnQ as such items do Trot prevent the construction of Duildinge on ony of the Iota and/or trecte this aubdNieion. LJNE TABLE BEARING DISTANCE 33'a3'S$"lP- 132'2T'Ifi P 1'2S'5i 6D'G' cuss nz~ ortu was ovm awn errArw ~r ~ ~ 0.4 ACRE Hill to Trice Vol 796 P 314 / / . . 04/28/95 / / yo 0 ^~ / 8 a" / 2 A ~ ~ 1 2 R 2 / / ~ N b 1.00 ACRE Novick to Novick Vol 46 / ~ \ g •07/03 898 \ / / VOLUME PAGE r ~, ,, t ~` ~'~-''t ~~ ~ it--~'\. '~~: ;'H n~ i~Y 9~ ~ ~ "+ ~ REF. N0. f er ,b ~ ~ D /': ~~~.* 4~ r ~ ~~, ~~ i ' s ~ , ' ~ ~ ; I ', ~. a ~\ v... ~qt` ~ eRenat 11: _ aaaoe ~~ # ~~ r r •~~~ I ~II~ I I~~~;~t r F '~' . ~~ ~ ~ I <'*'I F .~ _-~~ .-,x~ _TM- ~ rti, J, ~ l ~ Cr;nler Ywnt -Tn I x d a.'~a,.5` ~ ~• 1 0 ' S ` ~~ 1 -~ ' r w 1 s aat~ ~ > ..? ~ _ j I ~ P..4d I I } ~,, .R.. +_ ,~- VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 2000' aN ~sz i ~`~~ F°~~~P~ ~~ G~ ~~ 5J ~f..ti 4~ Q~ ~Ay~ ti ~ ~~@ ~ 0 I t* ti~~~P/~+ ~p1A1N APPR~~~ mated 5 98~> 8FE ACh,~ a+K m ~~ ~P Al ~~Q 9a' P v a Pp~~to0.g \tiOry6 ~~ ~ p~^ `~~ Q~O~ ~ / 99 ~ 1 GJ~ `oaco~~~ '~ } ~q - /~ ; ~' ~ ; cQ~~~ A \ / / j Y q' 0960 ~`~ " s,a a~ i < / '~ / ~ ~~SE / J~b ~S i (30 FT~~EN( NA / / N g R~E ~ P oh ~~ / f ` / Na+ ~top99ovic~k9 / Vot.p f03J98 J ~ ~ If / ~~ \ vo Q h f ~\SO1nyh~.`h~ / / / ~,a ~ ~ \ j f i / ~ i ~t \ ~ I \Y, , Ii / / ~, 526 ~' LOT 1 12.60 ACRES y _"--~ I ~ / , ~-_ ~ RAC s 1 ~_DE- _~ ~~/~~,~C1u ~ 3 _--- __--- -- - _~ ~ ~. uNE 2.2d ACRES ns MastY^ 202 (R W`P °p~"' IY Records) Vot. 1118 p&Od~12/01 It L ~~ ~~ LPG ~ E~ J ~\ 4GN~tyt~yry'L T p~'1 do QA9q \ ~\~. ,~,,y9` yd' '~a° loh ~~, / f _3 LANE X525 ~. WIDE PRIVATE, EASEMENT - 75 EOF P LOT 1 12.60 ACRES -~ _ ----- ._--- - ~"""-^~ .-..nn>'29"Yl 1189.20' ~uNE ,~ r~ ~ ~''~/° % rm ~ `1 ~;;c0°t° Nwass vm. oit03~9a / `~\ t° Q _k / / ~o. oh1`s<1 i / " \ \ / j / / i ~ / f ~ 1526' 224 ACRPS M°~Y.2Q2 (Resl'PI D r1Y grcordsl Vol. 1118 P&~OdJl2J87 1 100' SGALE~ 1 ~ zoo ~ loo a GRAPNtG SCAT-E. FEEP UI EEGEND H a F~UN~ Yt• 1R0~~~ _ _..~pyERHEr`~ Utt41Y UNE O -.t PR'EL1Nf~ ARY PLAT FOR ~,,~OSTY ~'ECAS N ~~' SUBDT~ CONTAINING 1q.76 ACRES OF A SUgpIVIS10NLESS,QUT OF JOxN150o~ KERR LANp, ~AORE OR TRACT NO. SURVEY N0.38, ASS COUNTY TE~SAPRIL 2005 O ~ r1 ~~~ m,~: o {~ g@Jl~~~l6 ~~~~~~~~ rElas ,sne. ew-x