Agenda for Jan 10th, 2017 meeting (7 pm top 8.30 pm)

Agenda for Jan 10th, 2017 meeting (7 pm top 8.30 pm)

January 10, 2017, Meeting time: 7.00 pm to 8.30 pm

Meeting Location:

St. James Episcopal Church at Webberville Road

Location: 1941 Webberville Rd, Austin, TX 78721

Phone: (512) 926-6339

Agenda

Codenext: Elizabeth Mueller member of CAG team from District 1 (CAG - Codenext Advisory Group)

Basics of Codenext

What is Codenext and What it is not?

How it will impact our life as citizens?

How will Codenext impact east and west Austin differently based on land-characteristics and infrastructure?

How will land plan and subdivision plan change based on code next?

What is the time line for Codenext?

What is our action item from Contact Team and Neighborhood association perspective

Bike Austin and Yellow Bike project - Mercedes Feris, Miller Nuttle

About Bike Austin's advocacy campaigns 

Review of City Transportation Plans as they pertain to Central East Austin

 - Bike Master Plan

 - Urban Trails Master Plan 

 - EastLink Plan 

What's in the bond for Active Transportation 

How to get your local projects prioritized

Consider Request from 3401 Oaksprings Rd.

We are requesting to be placed on the Agenda for January’s meeting

The request is to see if the group would consider making a decision out of cycle.  

Typically the address of the property would cause for the decision to be made in July.  This is a decision to be considered for out of cycle only and not on the actual zoning change.  If you agree for us to be allowed  to present out of cycle for a decision,  at the following agenda we would present the request for the property at 3401 Oak Springs Rd, to be changed from a SF-3 to a LO- with possible MU or MU-CO.0000000000000000

Email to Council member Ora Houston about subdivision

Email to Council member Ora Houston about subdivision

Hello Mrs. Houston,

The landgrab experiment in east side has reached an abnormal level. I am studying the land laws of the state and city ordinances including annexation documents. 

Many of the development are happening in subdivisions which were outside the city limits and COA annexed them at a latter date. So the plat maps here were done under the jurisdiction of the county (even though city planning approved it if it was in ETJ). Any land is a joint custody of the city and the county (that is why you pay tax to the county). The subdivision rights are not expunged when city annexes a subdivision and the home rule laws also never alludes to anything like that.  People often buy a property knowing the subdivision and land sizes etc. so state provides the idea of plat vacation if you have to change subdivisions. This is a safe-guard and not a nuisance.

City has decided to ignore the subdivision laws altogether. Builders are building roads and ROWs which clearly conflicts with the subdivision plat maps.  This is very convenient for city because they do not have to go through "eminent domain" or "condemnation process" in building a road and they get the roads after 12 months. The real challenge is that these subdivisions are destroying adjoining houses because there are no water mitigation laws within existing subdivisions. This is great for builders because now they can buy the next door house too. The subdivisions were built with a purpose and ignoring those purposes destroys the subdivision.

City is treating builders and citizens very differently because the ROW (right of way) rules are completely different. A builder can convert a SF3 (single family lot) to a ROW with no problem while a normal citizen cannot take water and sewer line under the driveway. This also creates a fundamental issue of our rights to property.  The county has very well defined "vacation" laws which I believe trumps the city ordinance. 

here are some details of my case as an example (but there are many cases like this)

1. Ebony acres was formed in 1952 - as shown in platmap.

2. It was in Austin ETJ (the notes show it as Government outlots adjoining City of Austin)

3. Austin Planning commission approved the plat and it has clear easements in the platmap.

4. The subdivision was annexed (full purpose) in 1970s.

5. The utilities were brought in 1960s and 70s and citizens had to pay for it (I have all details)

A developer is trying to put lot 6,7 and 10 in another new subdivision (where part of the new subdivision is in another subdivision). Lot 7 will be used for a ROW (city road) through our subdivision as per their proposal to connect the 2 subdivisions. So our subdivision will be effectively re-platted. City is refusing to go through plat vacation.

There is an AG opinion around a very similar case where the AG has mentioned that Plat vacation" will be required to create new subdivision - I have attached the opinion. I need your help to get another AG opinion and we would like to craft the question for the AG (somebody like Jeff Jack). This mad rush for landgrab is destroying your constituents so I hope you will take action.

regards

AG opinion