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, March 10, 2008
1:30 p.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
OSSF and Plattincr Issues
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct . 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
~I JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
', BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4
Y
~O
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, March 10, 2008, at 1:30 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: I will convene a workshop which was
posted and scheduled for this date and time, Monday, March
10th, 2008, at 1:30 p.m., the purpose of the workshop being
to participate in a workshop regarding O.S.S.F. and platting
issues. Are you going to launch this thing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll launch it first, and --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have -- just kind of an
opening statement, that the new rules which were adopted the
end of November are available now. They're on our web site
-- well, they're supposed to be on the web site. Anyway,
there are copies available; Jody has them. There are no
changes, just typos and all that stuff worked out, and page
alignment and all that type of stuff. With those new rules,
5.07 -- you might want to look at that -- fire suppression.
5.09 is a lengthy new addition related to lots under --
5 acres and under. A lot of that is related to secondary
type issues, but it's not what we're talking about, really,
today. 6.035, alternate plat approval process, that was
modified, as was -- we also added 6.7, a new provision
3-10-08 wk
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
regarding amending plat. An amending plat is only if there
r. It's not just a minor change; it's an error.
But going back to 6.035 and O.S.S.F., the issue
in the alternate plat process has been to make it as easy as
possible for people to make minor changes to a subdivision
plat, mostly either real small plats or combining lots. And
the idea was to get this -- make this as simple, as painless
as possible to try to encourage people to do it, especially
on the combining lots, because in every situation, that is a
better situation for the County, in our feeling. The problem
has come in as to O.S.S.F. -- O.S.S.F. rules, which I believe
it's under Chapter 285, Ray? Is that right?
MR. GARCIA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And their rules require that
Environmental Health Department. Well, for Environmental
Health Department to review a plat, then the surveying group
has to put information on the plat for them to make it
worthwhile, such as structures, wells, septic fields and all
that. Once they do that, they're basically doing the same
work as a preliminary plat, because they're preparing a plat
for O.S.S.F. -- O.S.S.F. Department, and then they're having
to do a final plat, because we don't want that detailed
information on the final plat. So, we pretty much have gone
3-10-08 wk
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
working. And the real question is if we could, you know, fix
that, is kind of the problem in a nutshell.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Well, we went over this when I
year, I don't know.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Six or seven months ago.
MR. DON VOELKEL: And at that time, Miguel was the
-- the head of that O.S.S.F., and he gave me a feedback
saying he didn't -- wouldn't approve the plat because I
didn't have a contour map, drainage map and all these things.
And I asked him, I said, "Well, you show me in the law where
it is." And he referenced TAC 30, and that's the law. I
looked at the law, and I did a little research, and I think I
gave all my findings to Rex at that meeting. That's what
y'all requested, Rex to look at it. And it specifically said
a person who is subdividing property and developing property.
Well, the property I was working on, Falling Water, had
already been developed and already been subdivided, and we
were not subdividing. I looked in Black's law dictionary.
We weren't subdividing a piece of property. We were taking a
lot line out, and the same guy owned both lots. Combining
them did not fit under that guideline.
And I have a letter that Rex wrote to the
3-10-08 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
5
Commission saying that when you're combining lots, you're not
subdividing. You're not -- that's when those laws did not
kick in. And I -- that's what I found, and at the meeting I
explained that to y'all, and y'all said, "Rex, would you --
would you investigate it?" That's what we found at that
time. And have I that letter at my office. I know you
probably remember going at that time, looking through that.
And that's what we found at that time. So, that -- it put
that specific lot combination in a different category than
replatting or cutting a lot in half or taking three and
making four or anything like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What about the issue that comes
in -- like, we did one today, Infamous 1869.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: 1169.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Access road was changed.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Point of entry?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Point of entry was changed.
Nothing that affected any lot, but it was new. It went
through -- and I think that one, O.S.S.F. felt they needed to
review it, I believe. Isn't that true?
MS. HULETT: Well, they brought it to us for
review. All we did was basically sign off on our statement.
Basically, that was the only check. It didn't affect
anything else.
MR. GARCIA: Right.
3-10-08 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
6
MR. DON VOELKEL: Right. And that's kind of
similar to combining lots. It was nothing being changed. I
don't read specifically -- I don't personally think that
should have been a replat, but that's what everybody else
felt, so we did it. I mean, I took his money and we did it.
But I didn't really think that -- but that's a little
different animal than combining lots. But specifically on
combining lots, that's what I researched, got all the
information and gave it to Rex. He came up, I think, with
the same conclusion that I did, that that specific combining
something that I don't think -- and I think at the time,
Miguel said he's just wanting to make sure that they get a
system out there, and I said, "It doesn't really matter.
Right now, you could put two systems." And we talked about
that, Jonathan. And by taking that middle line out and
making it one system, it was better for the County, and these
were larger lots. These were 4-, 5-acre tracts; they weren't
little half-acre lots that were substandard anyway. But I
can see even that. Even if it was half-acre tracts that were
platted in the '70's, taking two half acres and making them
1 acre is still a better situation. And that's what we all
-- but y'all wanted Rex to -- to legally say that was the
same.
3-10-08 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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- okay. The question
is -- I guess it comes down to, does our current language
work?
MR. DON VOELKEL: For combining lots?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, for the alternate plat
process.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Not for combining lots. I'd say
it works, but what you're doing is requiring -- for combining
lots, you're requiring a lot of extra expense, and not only
', what Don said. I think if you just look at it as common
sense, how can you explain to somebody that wants to combine
lots that it's going to cost them $1,000, and what are they
getting for that? They're absolutely getting nothing. There
', is -- in my mind, there is no review. There's no sense in
III saying, "Okay, you can have septics on two lots, maybe. Now
that you're going to combine them, you're not going to be
able to put a septic on it." That just doesn't make sense to
me. So, I think if there was a way that you could word it to
-- to exempt combining lots, that would help.
MR. DON VOELKEL: I think it exempts it in the
state law. I don't think the state law requires that, that
specific plat, or amending plat. Not amending, revision.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's not just combining
lots, 'cause it's -- this thing we did this morning is one.
I mean, you know, if we don't need to run them through the
3-10-08 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
8
O.S. -- Environmental Health Department, we shouldn't run
them through Environmental Health. Changing road names. We
did one not too long ago where we changed a road from public
to private.
MR. DON VOELKEL: How would that kick in needing to
be reviewed? Just like the one for Infamous 11 -- I mean 16
-- 1169, and also combining lots, I don't need -- I don't see
i
', what the need for review is, if you're not -- if you're
~ dividing a piece of property.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the --
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Maybe we could hear from O.S.S.F.
and see what their reading is.
MS. HULETT: If it has an O.S.S.F. statement on
there, you know, then I feel that has to be reviewed, 'cause
I've seen some that have gone through that weren't reviewed,
and the language wasn't correct. And I don't know that
anybody else would be looking at that.
MR. DON VOELKEL: I don't think anybody -- I won't
speak for everybody, other surveyors. Having the note on
there is not necessarily doing a contour map and all the
other things. I think that's -- I don't have a problem with
her looking at it and saying, "This note needs to be on
there."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have -- once we -- till we
standardize things, once we have a note on a plat, someone's
3-10-08 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
9
going to have to sign the note or say why it's not being
signed.
MR. DON VOELKEL: She means the note saying no -- I
mean, I don't mind them signing it either, as long as we
don't have to do all of the couple thousand dollars worth of
work, when we're not really doing a subdivision.
MR. GARCIA: Well, and that is the question. I
mean, it -- you know, like we talked before, too, is I need
to find out -- define exactly when we do become involved,
when O.S.S.F. is in question and when it's not. Because some
of these, I don't see where we come into -- to have anything
to do with the change of point of entrance.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Right. And that's my point, too.
I mean --
MS. HULETT: And all we did was look at the
O.S.S.F. statement on there and sign it. Didn't require
anything else on that.
MR. DON VOELKEL: 'Cause we didn't want to change
anything that had just been done previously, and there's one
I'm doing right now that was out -- the one we had to set the
public hearing for, where there's -- Oehler. It was Bruce's
deal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: His family.
MR. DON VOELKEL: That one is, like, a 60-something
acre tract, cutting it into two tracts. There's already
3-10-08 wk
10
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
homes there; there's two homes there, and she's been letting
this other person live there, evidently, or something. And
the guy said, "I want to buy this tract," and she said okay.
Or maybe he just now can afford to or something. So, we've
carved off, made a 200-foot access and created the plat.
Well, the review I get back says I think the only deficiency
is I haven't shown septic tanks and drain fields -- I mean
the sewer.
MS. HULETT: Well, I looked, and the original plat
had none of that information with it.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: No, I understand. When you have
existing lots that already have wells and septics on them,
why are you going through soil examination when the septic is
already in place?
MS. HULETT: Well --
MR. LEE VOELKEL: That's the review that I can't --
MR. GARCIA: Again, that's what's in question, is
that we are going by 285. And it requires something totally
different from what you're used to, or what the norm is.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: But let me just ask you on a
common sense -- let's say 285 says that. When you're
combining lots, what can you see, as far as your experience,
why would you need topography and soil delineation when we've
already got two lots that are -- that have already been
accepted for approval for septic? I'm going to combine
3-10-08 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
those, you know, and you're saying, "I want all this
information to review." Are you going to refuse them a
septic after you get that all that information?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex has a question.
MR. EMERSON: Let me throw something out real quick
on combining lots. We reached the conclusion last year that
combining lots was not a subdivision pursuant to T.C.E.Q.
rules. T.C.E.Q. disagrees with us, and we said, "Too bad,
that's our interpretation of the law." Bell County has just
hit the exact same wall. I don't know what's going on over
there politically, but Bell County has now submitted it to
the Attorney General's office for an opinion, so sometime in
the next six months, we'll get an A.G. opinion that will
clarify that. Now, the good news is -- is we'll have an
opinion. The bad news is, if the A.G. disagrees with us,
we're back to square one.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Where do we stand about the --
and I'm just talking about practical. I mean, if I own a lot
and I'm having to spend the money out of my pocket, I'd be
concerned. I'm on the other end of that; I'm taking these
people's money, but I don't think it's right. Can we
still --
MR. EMERSON: Let me add something on that, Don.
They're bound to follow 285. They -- we're representatives
of T.C.E.Q. through that department. If we don't follow 285,
3-10-08 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
T.C.E.Q. can step in and take that authority away from us,
and then we're stuck with somebody from San Antonio coming up
here every time somebody wants to do an O.S.S.F.
MR. DON VOELKEL: So --
MR. EMERSON: They have to follow 285.
MR. DON VOELKEL: So, if the A.G. says combining
lots, you still have to do topographic and all these things,
we still have to do it?
MR. EMERSON: If the A.G. comes back and says that.
As of right now, you know, as far as I'm concerned, you
don't, 'cause it doesn't fit under the subdivision rules.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Until this comes in.
MR. EMERSON: Right.
MR. ODOM: Not a subdivision.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Right now it's not, but it may
be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- so, the only things that
need to go through Environmental Health Department for review
with documentation of stuff is if it is subdividing property.
If we're changing roads from public to private, changing
access points, if we're not dividing property, they don't
need to look at it.
MR. EMERSON: I think that's -- the wording that's
in 285 specifically refers to subdivisions.
MS. HULETT: Right. But could some of those
3-10-08 wk
13
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
changes affect possibly a setback requirement? That would be
a question that I would have.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I wouldn't think so.
MS. HULETT: The road changes, possibly. I don't
know, you know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not a boundary -- a road
boundary change would. But a road classification change,
such as from a public to private --
MS. HULETT: Boundary change might.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Or a point of entry.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Combining lots won't affect
setbacks. I don't see how it would.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Well, but that -- that being
said, I think we're -- until the Attorney General comes up
with some ruling, we may check it. But as far as what I'm
talking about on the Oehler Estate --
MS. HULETT: That's considered a subdivision,
though.
MR. DON VOELKEL: I understand that. I understand.
What I'm saying right now is, what I want to find out, she's
telling me she wants me to locate the drain field. Well,
it's buried. It's been buried for 20 years. No way for
me -- unless they go out there and dig it up. Is that what
we -- the public is -- are being told by the Commissioners
and -- and the O.S.S.F. Department, is that you want them to
3-10-08 wk
14
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
go out -- 'cause I'm not going to certify it and sign and
seal something that locates something if the owner just said,
"Oh, it's over there." I -- I'm not going to do that. And
if -- and if they demand that it's either shown on the plat
or they're not going to sign it, what do we do? And, you
know, Bruce, if you were -- you've lived in your house for as
long as you have, you have an idea where it is, but I'm not
going to -- I would put a note on the plat saying, well, the
owner told me this is where it is, but I don't know if that's
good enough for what they want. They want me to certify and
my sign -- put my signature and seal that it's located there.
How do we do that? I'm talking about practically, not -- I
know it's in the law. I know --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Practically, I would say you
do it -- if it were required, I would say you do the tank
with GPS.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Yeah, it's the drain field.
MR. EMERSON: Unfortunately, I have an answer to
that, too.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The tank is what I'm saying;
locate it with GPS.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: But it's all buried. We don't
know where that is.
MR. DON VOELKEL: The drain field is what's
concerned.
3-10-08 wk
15
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
MR. LEE VOELKEL: How does O.S.S.F. recommend
people locate their septics?
MR. EMERSON: We just acquired a piece of property
in Brown County, and it cost $75 for me to have a gentleman
go out there and flush some kind of isotope down the toilet,
and he has a tracking device and he can tell me exactly where
the drain field was.
MR. DON VOELKEL: He was with the O.S.S.F.?
MR. EMERSON: Private individual.
MR. GROGAN: Tells you if it's functioning
properly, too.
MR. EMERSON: Right.
MR. DON VOELKEL: That's true, but I would still --
if I sign and seal it, I'd say as per this man telling me
where it was. I mean --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what we get to, if you
go to -- those that have copies of the rules -- 6.02.C.7 on
Page 37 of the new rules, we require, for the preliminary
plat, structures, wells, oil, water, and monitor wells, and
septic systems to be located on that preliminary plat.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Preliminary plat's not certified
to. Nobody's signing and sealing it. That's the difference.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, you're just saying it's
there.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Just showing it on the plat.
3-10-08 wk
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You have no problem with
that -- this provision?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: On the preliminary plat.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: But when you go in under the
alternate plat thing, I think, you know, you want it
certified by a surveyor that that's where the septic system
is. And that's difficult for surveyors when you don't know
where it is. And how -- the question is, how do you locate
them?
(Several people speaking at once. The court
reporter asked everyone to speak one at a time.)
MR. DON VOELKEL: What we're talking about is --
and I don't -- I'm not saying you're wrong for asking for it.
What I'm saying is, how do we get from Point A to Point B?
You tell me I got to locate it, and I go to Rex and say,
"Rex, it's your property; I don't know where your septic is."
And I don't think there's anybody in Kerr County -- do y'all
know anybody that does that isotope thing?
MR. GARCIA: That's the first I've heard of it.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Unless we have somebody that's
around that doesn't have to come from Brown County down here,
I don't think we're going to do it. And, I mean, I think
that's a good plan, but --
JUDGE TINLEY: May be a good sideline business for
3-10-08 wk
17
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you to investigate.
MR. DON VOELKEL: I'm going to charge more than
$75.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if you're the only one around,
you can probably get away with it.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Maybe. But that's -- that's
I where --
MR. GARCIA: Well, it -- again, that's why we're
~ here, because --
MR. DON VOELKEL: That's --
MR. GARCIA: No, no, you're right. That's the
question. How do we get there? And, you know, can we come
up with something to locate that? Because if we have no
record of it, you know, in our O.S.S.F. permitting system,
then, right, how do we find it?
MR. DON VOELKEL: And that's the problem we have
with our clients about -- if they're telling us they want to
file the plat, and then -- and Ray's saying, "Well, you're
not going to do it unless we can locate that," we're kind of
-- rock in a hard place.
MS. HULETT: Would the homeowner have any idea of
who they used to install their septic?
MR. DON VOELKEL: Well, even so, if they go out and
say, "Well, yeah, it's over there," you're not going to
accept that. I'm not going to sign and seal that.
3-10-08 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
18
MS. HULETT: Did they obtain a drawing or something
from the person who installed it?
MR. DON VOELKEL: Specifically the one, I don't
know. But that -- I haven't even broached this with her yet,
'cause I just got that from y'all last week, and we had that
have a problem with, is making -- making them happy so that
they sign it, but figuring out how we can do it without
costing thousands of dollars.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- well, I'm reading again,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 44.
MR. DON VOELKEL: You keep jumping around.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can you make -- you said under
preliminary plat, you don't mind locating stuff. 'Cause you
don't certify where the stuff is; you're just kind of
locating it. And our rule says Section 6.01, Concept Plans
shall not be applicable in the alternate plat approval
process. Section 6.02, Preliminary Plat shall not be
applicable in the alternate plat approval process; however, a
plat containing the data required in Section 6.02.C.7.b shall
be required, or a statement shall be added to the Appendix B,
which is a certification statement. We're not saying that
3-10-08 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
that information has to be on the final plat and certified.
We say you have to give a drawing of where -- the same as you
would be required to under the preliminary plat if there is a
septic system on that property.
MR. DON VOELKEL: But still, he's expecting it to
be a correct drawing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, same as you have on
preliminary plat.
MR. DON VOELKEL: I know. Well, I differ from --
MR. LEE VOELKEL: If I'm giving a preliminary plat
that has a Voelkel Engineering survey on the plat, I need it
to be right. I mean, I'm liable, I think, if -- what happens
if -- if that guy just tells me, "Oh, it's over here," and I
locate it, and then when they get the plat and they sign
it -- y'all sign it, and then two months later they find out
that the drain field was actually over there, and it's on the
other guy's lot. Then they say, "Well, Voelkel gave us the
plat showing it over here." Even though I didn't sign and
seal it, I think I'm still liable. I mean, wouldn't you
think so, if I've given Ray a plat saying here's where it is,
and then --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I always blame the surveyors.
MR. DON VOELKEL: I know.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Everybody does.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'm just trying to make
3-10-08 wk
20
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
sure that our rules are doable. And, you know, I guess I'm
looking at it -- why do we need -- why, from a -- I guess
from a division standpoint, we don't want someone to divide
property where it's going right through the middle of a
septic field.
MR. DON VOELKEL: You don't want the drain field on
the wrong lot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So we need the requirement, you
know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In reverse.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Why can't we get Ray certified to
do this isotope thing? (Laughter.)
MR. GARCIA: Have to start a business up.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the County can make the dough,
right?
MR. DON VOELKEL: There you go. Well, he's the one
that has to sign off, so he has to be comfortable. He wants
me to tell him where it is, and I'm uncomfortable unless I
know where it is, and we don't want to make them dig it up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right now, how does the
surveying comment handle a property that has a couple houses
on it, and they decide to do a subdivision?
MR. DON VOELKEL: Doing one right now. I mean,
that one for the Oehler Estate has two houses on it. See,
that's the reason for that revision of plat. That's --
3-10-08 wk
21
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
'cause she's going to convey to him what he's been living in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you went out there and --
MR. DON VOELKEL: We located the house and the
wells and put the hundred -- 100-foot septic -- I mean,
sanitary control easement, but I didn't --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just left septic off, even
though our rules say to put it on?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Don't know where it is. Again, I
don't know how anybody knows where it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What if --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Wherever the green grass is
growing.
MR. HARVEY: Why do you need it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If someone draws a lot line
right across that drain field, all of a sudden, that's
against state law. You can't have two owners -- a drain
field crossing some property lines.
MR. HARVEY: I mean, is this something trickle-down
from 285?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's -- well, that's in 285.
That's the state law, too. I mean, and it makes a lot of
good sense. You've got to have -- you have a drain field;
you've got to have it on that property. And it can't --
MR. HARVEY: Are there specific provisions in 285
for existing systems? I thought 285 was all set up by
3-10-08 wk
22
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
T.C.E.Q. having to do with brand-new systems.
MS. HULETT: Well, in the case of a property
division, that septic system -- we need to know where it is
so it's not crossing into that other person's property once
it's subdivided. That's the reason why we need to know where
it's located, 'cause it's not supposed to cross property
boundaries. It wasn't a problem at the time it was installed
because it was on that particular property, but now they're
dividing the property. That's the reason why they need to
tell us where it's located.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there are situations --
MR. HARVEY: I guess I need to catch up here,
'cause we keep jumping back and forth between taking a piece
of land and removing a common boundary line or subdividing.
MS. HULETT: Talking about subdivision in this
case.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we're taking a line out, it
doesn't have to go through Environmental Health Department,
period.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Wait, wait. Is that a decision
that's been made?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rex said --
MR. DON VOELKEL: Until the Attorney General --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Until the Attorney General
opinion rules differently, they don't sign it.
3-10-08 wk
23
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
MR. HARVEY: That's why I asked, why do you need
it? I mean, if you're taking a line out --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree with you 100 percent,
if you're talking one out. You already have one existing on
the property. It was platted and approved before that was
done in most cases, so if you're removing a lot line, what's
the point?
MR. DON VOELKEL: Yeah. For now.
MR. HARVEY: Or changing access, like somebody said
a while ago.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Doesn't make sense. Why do
you have to? And if the Attorney General is -- is not smart
enough to figure that out, then somebody needs to help him
with it.
MR. DON VOELKEL: We'll find that out.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
MR. DON VOELKEL: But I think, like, the one
specifically today for -- the one for -- for the Oehler
Estate, I can see where O.S.S.F. needs to know where the
drain field and the -- for that, or each lot, that they're
not, you know, cutting them off. I don't know the need for
any of the other information, like a contour map and drainage
plans and all that.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Soil study.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Soil study. I think we need to
3-10-08 wk
24
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
get practical and say, hey, we're just replatting an existing
subdivision. Make sure the septic's on there. We don't need
all these thousands of other dollars. I don't see the need
for all that. Me, personally.
MR. HARVEY: That's what 285 is. That -- that's
what kicks in provisions of 285, the new systems that
requires in-situ soil sampling, topography maps, all of that.
I don't remember any provisions of 285 that specifically
address existing old systems.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How far is this house --
MR. DIGGES: Just for the repair or alteration.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How far is this house from
the new proposed property line?
MR. DON VOELKEL: We pretty much divided -- there's
two homes there and two wells, and -- and I imagine two drain
fields, I assume, and we kind of split the difference. It's
probably several hundred feet.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Might be one.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Several hundred feet from
each property where the house is now to the new property line
from either side?
MR. DON VOELKEL: I think so, from both sides.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Wouldn't make a whole lot of
common sense that those tanks and drain fields are anywhere
near that property line. Why would somebody go in that
3-10-08 wk
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
particular terrain, which I know well, several hundred feet
away to put in a tank and a drain field?
', MR. DON VOELKEL: In this specific case, I think
we're probably okay, ultimately. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think you can't look at
that, 'cause I know of a situation -- and, granted, it's in
Kendall County -- where, for some reason, they -- they ran a
line -- sewer line probably 800 feet to keep -- to go into an
old tank that was working fine to add one bathroom over in a
storage building. So, I mean, you know --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: In this situation up there,
though, this is all --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can't write rules for --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- flat country and good
soil.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can't write rules for one
situation.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, I understand that.
MR. DON VOELKEL: But other situations are going to
come up where we're going to have the same concerns and the
same problems.
MR. DIGGES: Now, there's some local pumpers that
they don't have the isotopes, but they do have a transmitter.
They go fishing, but in a different type of way. They put it
down the toilet, and they -- they flush this transmitter down
3-10-08 wk
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
and they keep flushing and flushing until it won't move any
more. That means it's reached the tank. And -- 'cause it
won't leave the tank. So, you can find the tank that way,
'cause you go out there with a receiver and, you know, you
can pick up that signal from the transmitter; you can locate
the tank. And then, from kind of common sense -- because
from the tank, usually the drain field will be slightly
downhill, and you can kind of figure out where the -- the
drain field's going to be, with -- within a reasonable, you
know, amount of confidence. And, of course, then if there's
green areas or there's indentations, like trenches -- there's
all kinds of clues. But, you know, unless you just had a
really critical case, well, then you may have to go to the
n'th degree to find out where it is. But in a lot of
instances, you can kind of get a common sense feel for it.
It's hard to put that all in writing, but that's the way it
is.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe it can encompass a
certain area that may not be the exact location, that it
would be the exact location within a larger area than what it
would possibly be necessary for a system.
MR. DIGGES: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Say it's in a space of
200 feet by 200 feet. We would have -- "Here, that's where
it is."
3-10-08 wk
27
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
MR. DIGGES: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If you do that, that's going
to pretty well eliminate your encroachment onto any kind of
easements or other property line.
MR. DIGGES: Yeah, it is. And, you know, back
before we had profiles and all that, where there would be
records, I mean, what you did is, when you left the tank, you
went as quickly as you could to the drain field area. You
didn't run a couple hundred feet to get out of bad soil into
good; you just put it right there, and that's how they
operate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think that's all good. I
think Bruce has a good point on setting the boundaries, but
I'm going back a little bit to one of the people -- maybe it
was Les -- talking about 285. I'm confused what 285
requires. I mean, if someone goes out and, you know, takes a
30-acre tract, makes 10 -- three 10-acre tracts, what does
that mean? What do y'all do right now? What -- I mean, what
do you require for that plat to go through?
MS. HULETT: Well, we have a list of everything
that we use, that we look at.
MR. HARVEY: 285 is essentially T.C.E.Q.'s design
rules --
MS.	HULETT:	That's	our checklist.
MR.	HARVEY:	-- for	on-site sanitary sewer
3-10-08 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
28
systems.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's true.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's an overall site plan.
Easements, topographic map, floodplain, U.S.D.A. soil
analysis, that kind of stuff. The rest of it's more related
to --
MS. HULETT: That's -- and the explanation is
provided -- I think he also provided you this.
MR. GARCIA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And you do require that. I'm
not saying you -- I mean, I'm just asking, is that required,
whether it's a 100-acre lot or a 5-acre lot or 1-acre lot?
MS. HULETT: My understanding, that's what we go
through for everything.
MR. HARVEY: Any -- the design of any system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not -- all we're talking about
is dividing a lot line -- you know dividing a lot.
MR. DON VOELKEL: How -- what do you do --
MR. HARVEY: 285 is designed --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But they're required to look at
it under 285. 285 says that they have to review --
MR. HARVEY: -- for new systems.
MS. HULETT: These guidelines are what we received
from T.C.E.Q. on subdivision reviews.
3-10-08 wk
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MS. HULETT: And that is -- there's a section for
subdivision rules also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For a plat, a subdivision of
property, they have to get this information. And I -- I
guess I'm clarifying, that's what 285 says. Because, to me,
it doesn't make any sense, even though -- even though --
common sense is not a good judge here, necessarily. But if
you have a 100-acre tract, I don't see why you need anything.
But, you know, that's not the law. That's not the law.
MR. DON VOELKEL: I'm the same with floodplain. If
there's just a little tiny little stretch of floodplain --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Do not go there.
MR. ODOM: There's no compromise on that.
(Laughter.) To be putting your seal and name on it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Now, there is a -- maybe an
exception to some of this, because if you have over 10 acres,
you can actually put in a system that will meet or exceed
state standards, and you don't even have to go to O.S.S.F. at
that point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's not -- but it
doesn't say they don't have to look at the stuff for platting
when you do the additional plat. But -- and I'm not -- I
haven't read this.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If -- if it is a piece of
3-10-08 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
land and has been divided. But if it is -- if it's an
trying to figure out what they're going to need on a division
of property on a current subdivision, what they have to get.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there -- and no matter the
size, you need to do the topographic, soil analysis and all
that, if you're doing 20 lots, one lot or two lots. Size
makes no difference. If you're dividing -- if you are
subdividing properties, that's what's required. Do you agree
with that, Ray?
MR. GARCIA: Yes, sir. I mean, I -- that's what I
other words, Commissioners Court can't say we're going to
either -- those are guidelines; we're not going to go by
these guidelines? Or if you got 100 acres, or if you're --
you've got existing structures, that you still need all that
information? The reason I ask, too, is because -- I know
this is terrible to say, but, like, surrounding counties are
not requiring all that. If it's state law, which is what
everybody says, shouldn't every county be doing that? And I
don't think -- every county's not doing that. And I'm
wondering if the reason they're not doing it is that their
3-10-08 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
31
Commissioners Courts have opted to say that's unreasonable,
that's not good practice for our county. I don't know.
That's just a question I have. But I know that we don't have
those things going on in surrounding counties.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are they -- are they not requiring
all this contouring and soil sampling in those situations
where there are existing septic systems on the lots?
MR. DON VOELKEL: I just did one, Pat, in Kendall
County, in Champee Springs, where there was, like, a 900-acre
tract, 180-acre tract, and the man owned both of them. And
they had a buyer for the 180, but he wanted to sell 110. The
guy -- maybe -- maybe that's all the money he had; I don't
know, but he wanted to sell 110. They let me do an amending
plat. As a matter of fact, I delivered the stuff this week,
an amending plat. Even though it wasn't an error, they
allowed me to do an amending plat. There's a house -- on the
180 piece, there's nothing. There's floodplain, but there's
no -- and I showed the floodplain. But there's -- on the
900-acre tract, there's a house and a well and a septic. I
didn't have to show any of that. And they know it's there,
but they didn't require it. I didn't show the well, the
septic, the house, the structures, the driveways, nothing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it occurs to me, if -- if the
state rules apply to a design of new systems or modification
of existing systems, and we're requiring the soil sampling,
3-10-08 wk
32
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 contouring and so forth, in order to establish some
threshold that a new system can be placed there, that there
may be a way that you can exempt from the contouring, soil
sampling, all these other nonrelevant requirements, in those
cases in which you have existing operating systems. Or am I
missing the boat here?
MR. DON VOELKEL: No, I -- that's what I think
would be practical.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: That's what would be practical.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Other than they're saying locate
the system so we're not over the line. I can see a need for
that. I just don't know how to get that done without digging
them up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's -- the stuff from
T.C.E.Q. is pretty -- it's all proposed subdivisions and
development plans.
MR. DON VOELKEL: But talking -- but, like,
revisions of plats --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, this is the first time.
You go down to a raw piece of land, you need to do all this
stuff.
MR. DON VOELKEL: So, on a revision of plat, we
don't have to? The revision of plat doesn't come under that
guise?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, it would too.
3-10-08 wk
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
MR. DON VOELKEL: It would?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, revision of plat
is the same as --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm with the Judge. It
doesn't make sense to do all that when you have an existing
system. Why would you prove up the soil types and contours
and all that --
MR. DON VOELKEL: Like on the one for the Oehlers.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- when you already have an
existing system?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, it doesn't make any
sense to do it on a 100-acre or a 1,000-acre subdivision.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Amen. Another reason for an
exemption.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can do something.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Does your copy, at the top, have
"Guidelines," or does it -- because mine says "Subdivision
Review Guidelines."
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says "Guidelines."
MR. LEE VOELKEL: To me, that's not law -- state
law. If you're going to do -- if you want to do a review,
these are some guidelines on how you do it.
MR. DON VOELKEL: He's not an attorney, by the way.
(Laughter.)
3-10-08 wk
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We know.
JUDGE TINLEY: They can't take his law license away
from him.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: That's the way I interpret it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Nice try.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Guidelines. You don't
necessarily have to buy into them. They're suggested.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: If you like to do it or not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Optional.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: These guidelines are pretty
clear. Whether we have to follow them seems to be the
question.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: There we go. Bottom line is, it
just adds a lot of cost. And I think, on combining lots,
having to do that, we would be discouraging people from
combining lots, and I think that the Court has decided years
ago that they wanted to encourage that, and I think it's a
great idea. These other ones where it's just going to add a
bunch of cost to it, I think it just eliminates affordable
type housing for Kerr County, because the price of these lots
gets so expensive.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Combining lots is taken care
of. That's -- until the Attorney General rules otherwise,
3-10-08 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
35
they no longer need to go through Environmental Health. And
anything that doesn't -- if you're not subdividing, it
doesn't need to go through Environmental Health. It's
whenever you're subdividing, whether you're changing a lot
I
line or creating a new subdivision, that's subdivision.
MS. BAILEY: But you still haven't answered the
question, if you've got rural property that has not yet ever
been subdivided, you're going to try to do a plat, and
there's already an existing home on it, it sounds to me like
you're saying you're still going to have to have topography
and drainage and all that; is that right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what the guidelines say.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, unless -- unless you read it
by saying, "A11 proposed subdivisions or development plans
wherein the wastewater is to be disposed of." That connotes
a future tense, rather than, "wherein the wastewater is
presently disposed of by means of an on-site sewage
facility."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lawyer.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: That's the way I would read it.
MS. BAILEY: If I owned four pieces of property
that are all defined by metes and bounds, and I want to put
them together so I just have one piece, but I'm not going to
sell it off, but I have a house already on it -- thank you --
are you saying that according to what you just read, I
3-10-08 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
wouldn't have to have all of that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if you interpret it the way
that I just proposed -- which, if that goes to the A.G., I
don't think it will get much support, but we'll see. Unless
and until we have definitive law that says otherwise --
MS. BAILEY: They haven't opined otherwise. If you
opine that way, I guess that's the rule until they say
otherwise.
JUDGE TINLEY: Again, these are guidelines.
MR. ODOM: Metes and bounds, we don't see it
anyway.
MS. BAILEY: Well, except if you're going to plat
it -- oh, well --
JUDGE TINLEY: You're going to plat it if it's
metes and bounds.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Did he read that from the
bottom, or was that -- is that something he read into it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To be future --
JUDGE TINLEY: No, we're not going -- we're not
going to mess with the floodplain. Leonard's --
MR. ODOM: There is -- in conjunction with this
here, we're having a problem. Of course, part of this is
going to be resolved in a little bit when we get an A.G.'s
opinion. But the routing slip and all and the timing, I've
had O.S.S.F. -- maybe they bring it to us and we sign it, and
3-10-08 wk
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
then they wait right prior to the agenda item before they
look at it. Sometimes O.S.S.F. does not know about it until
they get the agenda. So, I see a problem, and I would like
the direction of the Court. I don't think that we should
sign for anything until -- if O.S.S.F. needs to look at it,
they need as much time as they can, just like we do at 21
days. And I think the way to solve this problem -- because
it's not done. And I'm pointing toward Don, but just in --
in general, surveyors, you know, sometimes we have to call
and say we've got a problem. I may know on Friday, before
the Monday, that O.S.S.F. has a problem. And part of that
reasoning is because of the timing of when surveyors get it
to them, or not get it to them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Here again, it's the surveyors'
fault.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Always the surveyor.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Always.
JUDGE TINLEY: Just accept it, and that's a given.
Okay, guys?
ii MR. GROGAN: Charlie may be able to answer this.
Is there any property around here that can't be served? It's
just a matter of the cost to serve it, what kind of system
goes in, whether it completely treats it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. That's been one of my
arguments, Mike, before, is that you can -- there is -- you
3-10-08 wk
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
can put some kind of system on any piece of land almost, no
matter how small. It may be a really expensive system, may
be a big tank that has to get pumped somewhere. You know,
there may be -- but you can do something within our rules.
You know, 1-acre minimum lot size, you can put in a system on
i an acre.
MR. GROGAN: So, taking it from there, isn't all
the stuff just held off till after someone goes to put in a
septic on a property? They have a note that says they need
to get a permit; they go to get a permit that tells them the
type of system that could go -- are we doing this twice?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would say probably yes. I
mean, it doesn't -- the property owners, when they go to get
their system, have to, but the reason is, right now, the --
MR. DON VOELKEL: Guidelines.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the guidelines are -- I
mean, T.C.E.Q. guidelines are law, basically. I mean,
frequently. It depends on -- laws are passed by the
Legislature; the regulations are written by T.C.E.Q. in this
case.
MR. DIGGES: You need -- in order to put in a
system with the tanks and, like, a spray area for -- if we're
doing aerobic for spray, and considering the setbacks --
typical setbacks, either from a property line or from a water
line, something of that sort, even -- even a house, I need
3-10-08 wk
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
about 5,000 square feet in rough numbers. And when you get
out on these 50-acre tracts, there's just -- unless there's
just totally terrain like this, or all floodplain, you can't
prevent us from putting in a system. But there -- I went out
to one three weeks ago that was platted back in -- I think it
was '84. And it backs up to Camp Meeting Creek, and it's 50
foot wide by 140 foot deep, 75 foot setback from the water's
edge, and then the house and the two-car garage. I don't
know what to do for these people. It got platted in the
mid-'80's, and they don't have enough room to put in a
system. Even the current system that they have that was
permitted, it was with a variance to allow part of the drain
field in the road right-of-way. So, that's what they're
trying to get -- I mean, they're trying to keep away from
situations like that happening. But when you get on these
big pieces of property, it's hard to prevent us from putting
in a system.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Well, when that was probably
being -- we started business in 1972. You could. put a house
and a well and a septic on a 15,000 square foot lot, 100 by
150. I mean, and so we're light-years away from that. So,
whatever was created in 1980, I don't think -- we're not
going to be platting lots like that any more.
MR. DIGGES: No.
MR. DON VOELKEL: When you're talking about 3- to
3-10-08 wk
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
5-acre minimums, I think we're --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. DON VOELKEL: -- away from that problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 1 acre -- we're at 1 or 5, and
there are times you can have a 1-acre that is pretty darned
hard to put a system on. But I guess -- Rex, is there a way
that you can look and see if these guidelines are guidelines,
or if they're absolute? Because, I mean, I'd be much more in
favor of something -- if your lot size is over 5 acres, it
doesn't even need to go through Environmental Health. I
mean, I just -- I think it's a waste of our resources in the
county having -- tying up your time reviewing these things.
'Cause if you have 5 acres, you can put in a system. It may
be pretty expensive, something like that. If you get less
than 5 acre -- 5 acres or less, we got a whole bunch of new
rules with what we adopted under 5.09. I think there, we're
not -- I wouldn't be willing to --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Set that -- if you would set
that at 10 acres, then you sure wouldn't have to worry about
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, 10 acres. I mean, you
know, I think that there's a -- if we have the ability to do
that, I would sure be in favor of setting it at 5, 10,
wherever.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. But I do think the
3-10-08 wk
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
Judge has a point on reading this, though. Because it -- it
doesn't say of an existing or proposed. It just says, you
know, wherein wastewater is to be disposed. And "is to be"
is a future term. That is not something that is in past
tense.
JUDGE TINLEY: Isn't the power of suggestion
I wonderful?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's just great, and it makes
sense. I mean, they would have said otherwise if they'd have
meant both ways.
MR. HARVEY: Well, the comment was made earlier
that you can't write a rule that is universally applicable to
everything. That is exactly what 285 is. That's exactly
what the State tried to do, is write guidelines or a rule
that could be used throughout the entire state. To
piggy-back on what Mike Grogan said, there is a way to where
you can treat wastewater in any on-site sewage disposal in
any soil condition. Technology is available nowadays. But
285 is a guideline to be universally applied across the
entire state of Texas. Now, they -- they have put in some
procedural things in there about platting, but it is
primarily a universal guideline for design, installation,
like Charlie said, for modification and expansion. But
that's exactly what 285 is. It's a rule to be applied
throughout the state. I think that's why -- I think that's
3-10-08 wk
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
why everybody has to handle it in a way to massage it the
best way that it works for you in this county. And there's
other counties -- sounds like to me, from what Lee says,
there's other counties not even paying attention to it,
i
'cause it doesn't work for them. Or maybe they're just
avoiding trying to work with it. Who knows?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, really, until Rex
gives us a -- I mean, it's hard for me to vote. I might
agree with that, but until I find out if it's a suggested
guidelines or something that we are supposed to follow, you
know, it's hard for me to vote. I would -- hopefully, it's
what you're saying.
MR. HARVEY: You can also take the opposite
position, in that state rules are the absolute minimum, and
every county has the right to enforce even stricter rules.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't want stricter --
MR. HARVEY: I've seen that done before, too.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Used to be here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. HARVEY: So there's two ways -- there's a lot
of different ways to turn the mirror on this thing, if you
ask me. That's probably why we're having this meeting.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: At least we've resolved things
that if it's not a subdivision, it doesn't need to go through
Environmental Health.
3-10-08 wk
43
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
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Before we leave that, does that
require the note on there too, or no note? Just a question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no strong opinion. I
think if it's a note, a note or -- what's the note say?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Says it has to be -- whenever you
go for -- it's a site-specific evaluation, whenever you take
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, you want the note on
there.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: And that's fine. I think the
note's good. But as long as the note doesn't mean that they
need to review it, doesn't kick it back to them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that -- what do y'all -- is
that all right with y'all?
MS. HULETT: I still wish we could at least have a
chance to look at it, make sure that it's correctly --
MR. GROGAN: Is there a fee if a note's on there?
MS. HULETT: I don't believe there are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's only a fee if they're
signing.
MR. GARCIA: If we're signing.
MS. HARDIN: Could we make a policy on the route --
or the routing slip that it goes to them before we get it?
So that we know they have it in-hand, and it's not two weeks
from the time it comes to our office until they get a copy?
3-10-08 wk
44
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
~~! MR. GARCIA: We do often find out when the agenda
comes up that this -- as Leonard stated that, "Oh, by the
way..." You know, last minute. So, it would help.
JUDGE TINLEY: If it's just going to be submitted
for review, I don't -- I don't see anything wrong with, on
the routing slip, that by the time it hits Road and Bridge,
there be a statement on there that it has been submitted for
your review. I don't see a problem with that. I mean, the
sooner everybody is in the loop, or the -- even that has to
take a look at it is given knowledge of it, I think it's
better in any circumstance.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I still don't see the need
for review at all. If it's a -- you know, removing lot
lines.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Removal of lot lines.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They don't even need to see
it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, they don't.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Waste of their time, and
everybody, if it's only subdivisions that they see.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- by definition,
that's the absolute opposite of subdivision.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly. Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or anything else, if it's only
3-10-08 wk
45
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. HARDIN: But that does not include moving a lot
line.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No.
MS. HARDIN: Removing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Moving is a different story. Then
they need to see where that is in relationship to any
existing systems on either side of that line.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Yeah. The way the routing slip
says now, you got to submit 11 copies and so on, 28 days
before the Commissioners Court, and then it says you have to
complete the routing slip and submit it back 15 days before.
MR. ODOM: It should get -- when you bring it to
our office, the ladies sign it that we received it, right?
MR. DON VOELKEL: Right.
MR. ODOM: There's a date and there's an agenda.
What we're saying is that at the same time, O.S.S.F. ought to
receive a copy of that, that they know about it. Because
that routing slip is totally different -- we're talking about
acceptance of the plans, so we want them to have it ahead.
So I don't get a call on Friday afternoon around 3 o'clock,
that says, "I got a problem. I don't know about this." And
I've already got it on the agenda for Monday.
MR. DON VOELKEL: I know, but your routing slip
says it has to be submitted and signed by everybody and back
3-10-08 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
to your office 15 days before the meeting.
MR. ODOM: How many times have you done that?
MR. DON VOELKEL: Oh, every time. (Laughter.)
That's what I'm saying.
MS. HARDIN: What day --
MR. ODOM: If everyone followed this, Don, then,
you know, it would be a happy world.
MR. DON VOELKEL: I know. I don't have a problem
with doing it 28 days ahead, so my clients --
MR. ODOM: All we ask you to do is get it to
them -- if you get it to them when we receive it, we would
like to see O.S.S.F. sign that we know that they have it.
Then if I get a call on Friday afternoon, I'm going to be
quite upset, that there's more than enough time to review the
thing. And if I've already put it on the agenda, then I have
to make calls to try to cancel or try to find out what's
going on. That's not appropriate.
MR. DON VOELKEL: No, I understand. But that's
what I'm saying; you need to change this to say that this
needs to be there sooner, because the way this is set up
right now, it says 15 days before the meeting.
MR. ODOM: What we're saying is, get it on there so
O.S.S.F. -- we don't want to take it -- I don't want to take
it unless they have it in the same deal. We're not talking
about the routing slip, per se, 15 days before. Everybody
3-10-08 wk
47
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
ought to sign this; everybody's signature on the paper.
MR. DON VOELKEL: I know everybody in this room
understands what you're saying right now, but unless we make
some kind of -- that everybody else knows, I mean, what the
routing slip says is 15 days. So, what we have to do is get
them to sign the routing slip that they've seen it 15 days
before the meeting.
MR. ODOM: We're saying 28 days.
MS. HARDIN: We're saying we're not going to sign
it unless you've taken it to them.
MR. ODOM: We're not going to take it.
MR. DON VOELKEL: I know, but the routing slip
doesn't say that. You need to make the routing slip say
that. That's what I'm saying; you need to change it.
JUDGE TINLEY: All I'm suggesting is when you turn
it in to Road and Bridge, as part of that process, you --
when you submit it, you sign off that you have furnished a
copy of that to O.S.S.F./Environmental Health.
MR. ODOM: That just says they have time to review
it.
MR. DON VOELKEL: No, I understand. What I'm
saying, Pat, is that the routing slip says 15 days. And the
front -- we have to get it to Road and Bridge 28 days. So,
theoretically, if you go by what your rules say, I submit the
plans to the Road and Bridge 28 days before the meeting, but
3-10-08 wk
48
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've got another week to get it to O.S.S.F. and everybody
else. If -- we need to revise this, if that's what y'all
want, so that everybody knows, not just everybody in this
room knows.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not sure we're playing by 28
days or the 15 days, either one, are we?
MR. DON VOELKEL: Well, right now you're playing 28
days.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We say 28, but we don't do
that.
MR. DON VOELKEL: I think you ought to have a
guideline.
JUDGE TINLEY: Suggested guidelines?
MR. ODOM: We will have the minutes on this one,
you know. The less you say, the less you have to take back.
MR. DON VOELKEL: I understand. That's what I'm
saying. What I'm doing is --
MR. ODOM: I can live by it.
MR. DON VOELKEL: -- revise this to match what
Len's saying, and Truby.
i
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're both given at the same
time.
MR. ODOM: The same time, give their signature,
bring it to us.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both do it --
3-10-08 wk
49
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
MR. DON VOELKEL: But right now, this says 15, so
we need to change this, if that's what --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So both say 28 days, and we
won't follow that either.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Right, just a guideline. It's
just a guideline.
JUDGE TINLEY: Suggested guideline.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, for the time being, we're
going to leave the language as written in here, but with the
understanding if it's not a subdivision, it doesn't go
through Environmental Health. And Rex can look into it a
little bit to see what leeway we have.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Well, they want to see it, but
they don't have to sign it. We have to deliver it to them --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For the time being.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only ones they don't see now
are if it's not a subdivision, for streets, roads -- I mean,
not changing where they are, but public to private or
combining lots or stuff like that. That does not go there,
but everything else still does, and until we hear something
from Rex.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: All the requirements, topography,
soil, whether there's an existing house, existing septic,
3-10-08 wk
50
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 will stay in place.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Until Rex tells us we have
authority to remove that without jeopardizing our -- whatever
we have.
MR. DON VOELKEL: I don't want to kick the ant bed,
but what happens if there's three lots, and I own Number 3
and Mike owns Number 5, and Number 4 is between us, and we
buy it and want to split it. We're not subdividing; we're
taking three lots and just making --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's a subdivision.
MR. DON VOELKEL: So, that has to go -- even though
we're taking three and making two?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're changing -- as soon as
you change the lot line, there's a valid reason for them to
have to look at what you're doing.
MR. DON VOELKEL: And to make sure the septics that
Mike has -- 'cause he built it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that they need to
look at it. Y'all need to be -- I think I'd be real
concerned about signing something if you have existing
septics out there.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Yeah, and that would be that
situation.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: And on the certification or the
plat that's going to require this information, you're saying
3-10-08 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
it doesn't have to be certified, or it does? I was confused
when you started looking in the order.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says here that the plat
containing the data, meaning the house, well location, septic
location, that's just a drawing. It's not the plat. It's
not the final plat.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Right.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Those don't have to be on the
final plat? The house and the --
MR. ODOM: That's right.
MR. DON VOELKEL: -- the well? Well does.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the well -- whatever,
yeah.
MR. GROGAN: There's a rule on the final plat that
it supposedly conforms substantially to the preliminary plat.
That's something -- everything on the preliminary is supposed
to be on the final.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Substantially, except these
things are taken off. These things are not included.
MR. GROGAN: Then I need to talk to Bandera County.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Appears to me there needs to
be some language about existing systems on lots that are
going to be divided. I mean, if you have an existing system,
why would you do a profile and why would you do a topography
survey and all of that? I can understand locating the
3-10-08 wk
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
systems to some degree, but not a total full-blown deal, as
if you were going to put in a new system. That makes no
sense.
MR. DON VOELKEL: For the Oehler Estate.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Makes no sense.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Doesn't make sense to the public
that's doing it. They don't understand it. They don't
understand why we have to spend all that money without
getting anything out of it. The answer is, you're not
getting anything.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's where the issue comes up when
you say, "Well, what's it going to cost me to do that?" And
you tell them, and they say, "Well, what good is that?"
I.e., "What am I paying for, and why am I paying it?" That's
where it jumps up and bites you.
MR. GROGAN: What are y'all getting on the plat?
Because if I have to show a septic according to somebody else
determining the location, I'm not going to say that I'm
certain that that's where it's at. That's according to him.
Unless they expose it, I'm not going to show it certified
that that's where I'm saying the location is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think our rules say you
have to certify. You just have to have a drawing to them
and, you know --
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Put a note on there where that
3-10-08 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
information came from.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Unless we find somebody, like Rex
was saying, to come down here and do that, other than, "The
owner said..."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it'll cost $75.
MR. DON VOELKEL: No, I don't either.
MR. ODOM: I would -- yeah, make the note and do
that, and it's your best guess.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Yeah.
MR. ODOM: Just like floodplain. Best information.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Now, if it's real close to the
property line, I can see -- you know, I'm going to be
hustling, "Wait, wait a minute, how close is this?"
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So much of it depends on the
size, if you're dividing.
MR. DON VOELKEL: That's true.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Say it's an older subdivision
and you're adjusting a lot line, and it's a 2-acre lot. It
could have an impact, I mean, if it's an existing system
there, because a lot of these properties are being bought
with the full intention of modifying, changing, tearing down,
rebuilding houses. And, you know, you kind of need to know.
It's really tied to acreage more than anything else.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is this subdivision on the
Oehler Estate up there, is that between family?
3-10-08 wk
54
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
MR. DON VOELKEL: No -- well, it's real good
friends, family friends.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. Well, not family,
then.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: I like the way you're going,
though, Don. She could adopt that guy.
I~ COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If it had been family, you
wouldn't have to go through all this -- any of this, correct?
MS. HARDIN: In that case you wouldn't, 'cause it
was over so many acres. But on 1.03 on the new rules, when
you -- when you had the draft, you suggested -- and I wrote
on my draft that exemptions in 1.03 would not come into play
unless the lots were over 5 acres, but it's not stated as
such in the new rules. So, is it or is it not?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, it is under -- if you go
to 5.09, it will say that. But --
MS. HARDIN: So, if somebody comes in and asks if
they are exempt from a family division of property, what do
we tell them?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Less than 5 acres, they're not
exempt.
MR. ODOM: But how do we do that?
MS. HARDIN: How do we know that if it's not in
1.03, where we have all the exemptions listed?
MR. ODOM: I mean, it doesn't say --
3-10-08 wk
55
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: That's in 5.09. "These rules
in this section supersede any conflicting regulations."
MR. ODOM: That's true, but if they subdivide there
without -- off metes and bounds, and we catch something
later --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just like we do them now. I
mean, we note it and say, hey, it was an illegal subdivision.
MR. DIGGES: Are these rules in effect that you're
talking about now?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. DIGGES: They're in effect now?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have been for about a
month, two months.
MR. DIGGES: How long?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Two months -- since
November 26th.
MR. DIGGES: Okay. Then --
MS. HARDIN: There were not copies available until
last week. So, you're saying that the 5.0 -- the new one is
going to override the state rule on exemptions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason we did it this
way is that there's quite a few -- it would have been a total
rewrite of them and been very cumbersome to go back and
forth. We would have had to state a rule, then say except if
you're here and in this situation. Because the -- 5.09
3-10-08 wk
56
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
really changes the lots. If you're less than -- 5 acres or
less, you really have to read that.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Are you talking about exemptions
for family divisions?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They are not exempt under 5.09.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Because they're less than 5
acres.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because they're less than 5
acres. Anything less than 5 acres has -- 5.09 is real
critical. You have to read it carefully.
!, MR. ODOM: What about something already platted,
saying --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's already platted, there
is no new subdivision. It's grandfathered. But it would
cover a revision in an existing subdivision.
MR. DON VOELKEL: They're exempt from filing a
revision if it's more than 5 acres in a family --
MR. ODOM: Less than 5 acres.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Less than 5 acres.
MR. ODOM: 5 acres or less.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All of the exceptions to
platting do not apply if you're less than 5 acres.
MR. DON VOELKEL: Right. So if you're more than
5 acres and you're family, and if it's an existing plat, then
you can -- you're exempt from filing a revision.
3-10-08 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
57
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Well --
MR. DON VOELKEL: Even though it's platted.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: No, it's already platted.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If it's already platted, you're
not --
MR. DON VOELKEL: You're talking about --
MR. LEE VOELKEL: It would be unplatted land.
Unplatted land.
MR. DON VOELKEL: What if they're building a road
to get back into that?
MR. LEE VOELKEL: No, it's not exempted.
MR. ODOM: It's a driveway, Don. That's not a
road.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is Aggie interrogation.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Law school 101. Let's go back
and do some drawings.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you through, Buster?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am through.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm through.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: We'll explain it later.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Till we hear back from Rex,
we'll know where we're going, right? Right.
3-10-08 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
58
MR. LEE VOELKEL: We're not going to talk
floodplain today? Okay.
MR. ODOM: Let's talk. Let's do it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can go talk with --
MR. LEE VOELKEL: The Floodplain Administrator.
Yeah, you bet.
JUDGE TINLEY: I recommend that you do that right
away. Like, now.
MR. LEE VOELKEL: Yes.
MR. ODOM: Got him fired up.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Is that it? Okay, this
workshop will be adjourned.
(Commissioners Court workshop adjourned at 2:40 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF KERR ~
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 19th day of March, 2008.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y . u.l~ ----
Kathy Ba 'k, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
3-10-08 wk