Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Miscellaneous
Garrett Engineering William E Bntz, Jr. 4444 Carter Creek Pkwy, Ste 108 8800 Sandstone Bryan, TX 77802 College Station, TX 77845 95-233 95-233 William Gould & Patricia Branton Leona Lowe 8806 Sandstone Dr. 8810 Sandstone Dr. College Station, TX 77845 College Station, TX 77845 95-233 95-233 Ronald & Mary Eikenhorst Elmer Jones 2000 Oakwood Trail 2008 Oakwood Trail College Station, TX 77840 College Station, TX 77845 95-233 95-233 Bruce Miles Bertram & Sharon Frenz 2017 Oakwood Trail 2013 Oakwood Trail College Station, TX 77845 College Station, TX?8845 95-233 95-233 Richard & Patricia Startzman Emmett & Monta Kennady 2009 Oakwood Trail 8900 Sandstone Dr. College Station, TX 77845 College Station, TX 77845 95-233 95-233 Wayne & Jeanice Thomas John & Mary Niedzwecki 1800 Rosebud Ct. 9000 Sandstone College Station, TX 77845 College Station, TX 77845 95-233 95-233 William & Martha Barnes Patrick.&. Susan Clegg ' 9004 Sandstone 9008 Sandstone College Station, TX 77845 College Station, TX 77845 95-233 95-233 Brent & Jill Gray William Marr 9001 Sandstone 8907 Sandstone College Station, TX 77845 College Station, TX 77845 95-233 95-233 Gerald & Mary Miller Raymond Loan & Judith Childs 8901 Sandstone Dr. 8807 Sandstone Dr. College Station, TX 77840 College Station, TX 77845 95-233 95-233 American Research Center W A McKean 30 East 20th Ste, #401 2400 Frost Dr. Nework, NY 10003 College Station, TX 77845 Attn: Robert & Frances Vincent 95-233 95-233 College Station ISD 1812 Welsh #120 College Station, TX 77840 95-233 '~ID: R7G97Z {752.13.1 ROSEv~CsGD PROF. CI~FICE PARK, $LUE~ D, 5~+7400-0004=4640 U~~IT 404 ~~ K I-~ROSS-1~RIGHT s JUHi~Y i"+D PC BOX 673 ENTS: GisS1sC2 SEAkRDOkr Tli 77536 LA(~t~t`,SPTE: CZ ___ PID' 876574 (752131 KuSEv1O~JD PRCF. OFFICE PARK, BLDG u, ~~~~' 547400-OOG4-4050 UNIT 4U5 KIi~ROSS-wRIGHTs JUHN MD PG BOX 673 -- ENTS: G1sS2s~2 '' SEABR'OOK, Tn 775$6 KA(vD SP Tt~: C2 ~s '~„~% =---------------------°---_-- PID: 876975 175213? ------- ROSElwUOD PROF, OFFICE PARKS BLttG D, ', ,I 547400-0004-4060 U(vIT 406 ^Klp~r~SS-~RT~~NTs JCF~(~ "~,D *~ P C BEX 6 1? Etv T S: G1s S 2, (; 2 . SEAS~t1GKs TX 775Fsb LA(vp SPTs : Ct ~ ~ ~~ ''~ PID: 840292 (7754 ) ~~ ANDSTONE, LGT I, ACRES 2.67 - 5EC5CC-GOGO-C"G1I; '~, ~ ~i21TZ, ~ILt~iA~t E JR ~~ S1T+~S- 88CU SAi~DSTsOh fsBGC S~'h0STU~:E EUTS: t~Is 5ZsCZ ~, CC1LLcGE S7ATIuh, -TX 77845 L~PdD SP TB: Ais If~F SPTE+: Ai ~; ,, ~~ .PID.• n402S3 f1~2~141- -_ ' SA(vUSTJNEs LLT Z, AGK"ES ~. '~' 5E.C50C-C,GCO-OC~2G ,~ GCULD, l~'ILLIAI*i tnf+F~REN E SITU5= &'80b SA~dOSTfl(~E s3 -~ATRIC IA rL.RDu ~RaNTC;~ _ E~;TS: GI, SLs Cc ,a ,,I 88C6 Sat~DSTGNE GR LA~iD SP TB: AIs It~P SPTB: Ai ',,I CILfGE STATIi)Ns TX 77845 ~~ -~.-.-- -- .~ - -- - -- ------ -,- -e . I 38 .~..-~ - ...------o...... a. --- --- PID= 840254-`:f7t#S40} _ - --.~-----_~.--- __-.-~-~ SA(vDSTONEs LCiT 3-R ~tEPLAT, ACRES C~:+ `t., .SC's' ' s9 5EU500-0GG0-4u30-- - Z-0 __TL3T ~ 3U S ao, I ai LCWE, LEONA , 1zi 8810 SANCSTt3RE SITUS: 88iU SAt~;DSTONE - - _ CGLEFGE ST~t`s TX ?7845 ENTS- G1, S2, C2 ~ as aa UA(~3D SP`TB:; t~Is IF`~P SPTE: Al ... ' l 45 as f-T13476} e 0 St.tiQS'fi~1vE,'CliT 4-K; C~Ch~`S 2.50 ~ a' ~ -OG4p 0000 5 050 I aB! EIKENHORSTs RONALD ~ MARY SITUS= 2000 OAK4~UOD TRAIL 49 20C0 OA1CF~'T:L0 TR~,IL E;~7S: GIsSl9CL GDLLEGF STk7If~N, TX 77134(1 LA(vD SPTC{ = Als I(`'iP SP1 B ~ Al sa s, -- ---- s2 ss =------o-------------------__ PID: 840295 (26087} __-~__-_-----------------__-____-- SANDSTONE, LUT 5-R, ACRES Z.6 UA ~ 30s 5a -560500-000:0'-.00'50 TOT I 30 as r~"' ~ ~ ` , ., _ . m,._. ~; , ~ S I T t3 S ~ Z (J 0 #3 u A'K "v(is ElU T K A'I t. _ , , r / rl ~i ,,,y ~ ,.<; ~ D&~ ,-:. `. ENTS: GIs SZ sC2 "' i,.1.EGF-,~'fA > ,.7X 77Iy45 LAE~i(? ~PZB: A1, II~P S#'TEs: Al ~: n > ; 'i~G!S~~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ : ~ ~~. y. .. _ i s ~t: ~q..r ids - ' 41b:~T 7 ' `~ZOS CCUNTY '~ApPRAISAL DISTRICT A C R D S Y S T E .M ~'''`TH~E SOFTWARE GROt1PiNC. 1995 CERTIFIED APPRAISAL ROLL FOK= CITY ClF ~ % I b P 'T f ~ '''~~~~ f~ ~~ ~§ D _AGfiRESS PRUPEi~TY D~S~KIPTZQ(~ , I ~ ~XEN,F I ~ 1 ........:.. +1 _____- -- pi<:~AZOS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT TS~E SOFTWARE GR~;UPr INC. ------ A C A U S Y S T E N; 1995 CERTIFIED APPRAISAL ROLL F _ i ----------------------- i~K: uF C~ -----------------------------------•----CITY _~ C~wR'E-R t~tthit ~i'~D ACGKESS - - PkuPE'F:TY DCrSCN.IPT'I0h ,. ' .. ~_Xc~ ~P-TluhvS PIC: R4025~$ (40261 5EG50U-UGCO-GU60 --.._ SANDSTONE, Lt1T 6r ACRES 3. U[ ;;' MILESs BRUCt i< 2UI7 OAK4,'GOD 7RAIL __ __ SITUS: 2017 OAK WOOL' TRAIL COLLEGE STATIi~t~, TX 77tik5 ENTS: GL,S2sC2 LANG SPTB: !sls Ih;P. SPT6: Al 1 PIC: R402S7 t4U2~t7) 56C500-GCGG-OU7G ----- ----------- ---_-_. SAivDSTONEs LOT 7r gCFtES 3,G2 FRENZ, BERTRA~ A E SHARON 2G 13 OAKE`,CQC~ TR SiTUS: 2013 OAK WOOD TRAIL COLLEGE STATIOt~r TX 770 45 [:PvTS: GIr S[sC2 _. _ O . . AtvG SPT3: Als Ir'iP SFTt3: Al PID: R402S8 i4G29~! 56C5CG-G000-GUBG -- ----------•__---- SAtvDSTONEr LOT 8, ACRES 3.02 -----_ START~h^AP,r t~;IChARi3 k ~. ~'aTRC1 2CC~~ uAK~r,CC[J TR SITLS: 2C?G9 vAKi~~`uG~D TRkIL -- COLLEGE STATZut` TX 77G'45 tEti~TS: GIs S1, CL ~A;.tD SP TB: Als Ir°~P SPT~: Al ------------ ----- IC: R4UZS9 1122179) 5EC5C!G-GCG0-0G 9G_ ------------ ------------ _ _. ---~----------------_- ANUSTOF~Er LiT e-Rr ACRES 3.93 KEf~'~tADYr Eh`hSETT-HUBOARD E P`Cr~'TA SrTUS: 89C( SAi~t'STG!'~E $9CG SAPvCSTOr\E -~R`--- E``rTS: G1rSIrC[ COLLEGE STATiOAr TX 771645 LA~vG SPTis: AI.s Zh~P SPTts: Al PI{~: utiG3CG (1Gy53U) SCtr50C'--CflCG-GaGG -----~_-~-----_- S AivDSTOt~E s L%T I U-f1 s ACRE 5 2. IC ThOMtiSs WAYNE F JK ~ JEANICE 18GC ttOSE6uC GT SITUS_: Fs9Ur; SAr~G~STOLvE COLLEGE STATIi?N, TX 77845 tNTS- ~ G1rS2rC2 _ _ LAND SP TS: A1r LMP SPTcs: Ai P1D: R4C3CI tlt3?Gi;l 5EG5UU-UOU(7-G11G ` SnttiUSTJNEs LCT lls a~EZES ------------- ---------___ 3.u2 NIEDZWECKIr JOHN M E MARY 9G00 SANCSTONE _.-~ SITUS: 9000 SANDSTONE CCLliEGE STATZONs TX 77b45 ---- - ENTS: G1sS2rCZ LAtvl~ SPTB: Als I^1P ;S-PTb=. Al _PID. K4Q3G2__--_ t1u9717) ------ ----------------- ----- - 5EC500-OGCO-U12U SAtvQSTGNc, Lt~T t2, ACRt~ ~ ~ - - x•03 _ BARNESr WILLIAM S E MARTHA 9CC4 S~rdE5T0~E - SITUS: 9GL`4 SAtvDSTONE COLLEGE STATIOt,`, Tx 77045 ENTS: uLrS2,C2 LAt~C~ SP,TB: Alr :hiP SPTE: Al PIC: Rti0'C3 (117491) 5EC500-OOGC-G13G ---------------- ---__________ SANCSTONEs LOT Z3 LESS .p27ACr CLEG:Gs PATRICt. G ;~ SUSA~v ACRES 1.99 t- ~CC8 SANUSTGNr: ~ COLLEGE STA7I~r~, TX ~7t;45 . ~ITttS: 9C4C0 SAh~t,~STt~~t~~E ___ _ t'VT~. Gls SZr'G2 T LHt`dO SPTB: Qlr ZhtP SNTb: A1_ I BRAZOS COUNTY APPRAISAL U1SfK-~+ 1445 CERTIFIED APPRAISAL ROLL FOR : CITY OF Ci_i f THE SOFTt~ARE GROUP,INC. ______________ ___________... ~ l~ ~.----------------•w- o ADDR~e=SS PROPERTY DESCRIi'TIU(~ c xt"',FTIONS E' AhdO QWNER <f~Ah PIL': R403G4 (1.20254 3 ~ SAt~~,5T0[~tiE s LOT I4s t;CRES 1.43 ; 3 ', 56C50C-0000-0140 4U 01 SANDSTONE DR SITUS' GRAYS BRENT M E JILL G ENTS: GISS2sC2 ',~ 9COI SANDSTONE - -- CCLLEGE STATIt~h, T1( 77845: LAtVD S~'TR = Als It"P SE'TL: ~i ------- PIO' R4U~05 13b2t33) SANDSTONES LUT 15S ACRcS 1.97 ~,°', 560500-0000-015U SITUS: 8907 SANDSTONE ,~, MARRS WILLIAM HARRIS - f=f~;TS: GIsSLsC2 89C7 'SAI~DSTUNE CCLLEGE SYATItJt~S TX 77845 LAfvU SF Tu : A Zs IiN~P SPT b = Al ,a - - `'~ ----- ------`-------° 11;; P I0 = 840 3Gb (I 17167 I SANDSTONE, L07 IbS ACRES 1.47 I,g 56C500-0000-Oi60 G~ERALf1 E € t•,A~ftY Jt~f~IS - ~ SITS:-B`~UI SAf~DSTGt~E Et~S fr~IL g 89C1 SAh,C3TOLIE UR LAtTS: G1sS2SC2 Izo '', _ CCLf,EGE SI~xTIuf~S TX 77b4U LAND S[?TS: AiS If'tP SPTo: Ai f' PIO~ R4U307 (132426) SANDSTONES LET I7s ACRES 2.54 56C5CU-UCOC-fl1~7C ' SITUS: 88C7 S:+tvDSTGtvE t;R W E LDAr.s RAYl1~Q+vD E[~iT'S: G1SSZsCZ JUC~ITH l+t 'CkILDS - - LANiJ SPT~i= A1S 1F'~P SPTB= Al g~Q7 Slar~'CSTUNc UR CCLLEGE STATIONS TX 77f345 PIO'~R40308 {9iib23 SAi~DSTONE• LCT l'FSS At;RESZ.48 3~ 33 5EC500-OCLC-0'IbC K JR t. FRANCE _- - - -_ - S SITUS:- 8801 SAtDSTONE „al t+INCENTs ROisERT AMERICAN RESEARCH CENTER ' Ef~TS~ GiSS2SC2 , , ~,ss~, 3C EAST 20TH ST #401 LAfvD SPTB= AiS IMP SPT~s= AI - _ 3, NEk YURK~ NYC 1t~0Ci3 _ _ _ _ _ ~ PICs~R40309 tIU354} ' SANUSTVtvES LfIT I.9s ACRES 15.64- 'r'~ ac ~a'~ 56C500-OOCC-0190 ~az~ CCLLEGE STATIONS CITY OF SITUS= SEBESTA RD _ PL SOX 95EC ' Ehl'.TS~ fliS52C~ a3 CCLLEGE STATIOhts 'TX 77841 LAt~t~ SRTB: ExP i4a . I.. -_-_--®------------------- aai PIO' 840310 (40310) SANDSTONES LOT 20 tP7 OF)S ACRE ,ari '';ae, 56C500-0000-02C0 4.41 _ as h"CKEAC:s 1R; A SITUS: G~KJ~'OOf~ 'TRAIL sc 240.E FROST GR CCLLEGE STATIGtvS T~ 77845 ENTS= G1sSZSCz - -- - - s, - - -- ~ LAND SPTB: C1s IMP SPTcs: E[ Isz' Sj~ ~ - I ~ - _ __._ .____e_--- _ - °------- ---- ---------- _ ------ -- A C'A D S Y S T E AR87f15 COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT _ ____~~ ,,,,~ ~ y~~, a~„ , Fna • TTY [;F r ~ ._ -. __ _ _ ., BRaZOS COUNTY aPPRAISAL DISTRICT Y =-___________- a THE SOFTWARE GRGUP,INC. 1- _________ --- {, A C a Q s 19 s5 CtRTIi=IED APPRAISAL ROLL F Y S T ~ M . ,l ---------------- OR -------------°---------°°--------------- OF -CITY ('v !__; _._ _ _ _ ;, Dkti'NER N'k~E 't~Nt7 ADDRESS ~PRGPERTY- DESCRIP7I'GPv - - _ . E>;EhSPTl~rrS PID: R843Z~ fI`G373) ,,i 56~c5ac~=oct;c~-~~01 SAtvL'STQtvE, LC~T ~Q tPT UF}s ACRES :.; c: , ~ i COLLEGE STATIUN ISO i0.0 __ _ - ~: ~x~<<°~~T :: _ _ 1812 WELSh ~1Z0 COLLEGE STt,;TI(~tti'< - TX' 7 ---ENTS~ GisS2sC2 , s 78x,0 L."aNa SPTLi: EXP PYD: 840363 _ 5b1300-OCCO-00003b~} ---------------------____ ~AND`t" RdDG'ts ACRES 18.48 -_---- ---- FLETCNERs LERGY 907 SbtiCSTOR#E GR - SITUS: 9007 SAN%STONE DR CCCLEGE- STATIC, t`` x TX 77845 ET~TS: GI,~~9CZ Lr~tvi; SPT~3 AI, It~P SPTEs: Al PIO: 877868 (122471} 5bb500-OCO1-0000 ----_----_-- _ SCNICKs BLOCK 1, LOT UivPLATTEDs- - ----- _.__~~R. PkpPEkTIES 'ETU ACRES 9.b4Z A03_ E CEP;TkAL TEXAS EkPY KILLEEt~t TX 76541 SITUS: ~n'ELLBGi~i`d KD t, Si;>UTttrEST PK;~Y` __ ENTS= G1~SZsC2 .;_ LANp SPT 04 B PID: 877869 ti21i92} 5bt:500=OGCI-O~I~i _- - - °°------------------ SCPiICK s 8LOCK I, LQT 1-Rs ACRES ----_-____ °-°°_ YATES, JIK E E FA ELLEty ti.`7~s; E-Z t~AnT _ - 6507 SKYLitvE' t:R TEXARKA{~iAs HR 75502__ SITUS : i01 Sf1UTHw~tS T PKWY w' EivTS: GI~S1sC[ ---------------------- ---- LAtvD SPTB. F1, IMP SPTB. - PIO: 1t809G§ f 877-.1 I } - 56E500-02GI-OG50 - ~CHICK----------------------------- #~Zs -BLOCK i, Lt~T ;5-R, AC~2ES --------------- KRAAKs .IAY PkYTGN ' U.ts4 P G-SGX :3578'- - BRYANs TX 77b05 SITUS: 'WELLfsCihty RD -- ENTS: G1sS[sC2 __ ...~ -- - LANG SPTB : C[ -- --- PID;' R.4f3~kE f 10359} ..569500-OGGC-Ctr1G -_----=--------------------- =----d SHEfvAt~OE]Atif ~sLt1CK A9 Lf~T'2 REP~.ATa ------ - ~ EX~C•;PT- COLL-EGE STAT1Ghs LITY°"pF AORES IQZ6 °' PC BdX 99b0 - _ __ CCILEGE STATIGN, TX 77841 SITUS: HWY b SOUTH ENTS: Gi,S2sC2 ~ --_ - LAtiTI SPTB: EXPO iA'P SPT`t3: ExP PIf~ : R809C'i { 127337 } ----- - --- ---~-- - - ----__- 5b95f)'p~-LOGO-0011 - + SHEt`lANDOANs ~sLDCK ~ ~ _ LUT ;Kk I59 :JF -m ~_- _ KINGS CHARLES L 1 nEPLATs ACRES 0.6~ "PLATv`TA~TTOfv L - PC~ DRAWER 20108 GARDEN NURSERY" - CCLLEvE STATI~t~i, TX 77845: SITliS: IBG4 SGUTtiE~~P~ PLAhTATIC1Tv T ENTS: GIs S2r.CZ - = _- LAiVQ SPTB: FIs TMP SPTB;: FI PID: 892840 t 12733 7 } 569.500-0000-0013 ---------- -=---=--------=- ---=---~-~- SNENANDOAHs BLOCK A, LUT S 50' OF _ -----_ -------_ KIttG,`~~LES °L I REPEAT, ACRES 0.21 `-' PC `~R+~NER IQ1f1G' _~-_ - C;' COLLEGE STATIt7t~, TX 77845 c .,ITUS: HAY 6 S FEEGEk T' ~; "u' March 1, 1996 Hubbard Kennady 426 Tarrow #106 College Station, TX 77840 Dear Mr. Kennady: a~~ ~5 This letter is to inform you of the City's decision regarding sewer service tap fees for the Oakwood Trail Sewer Line Project. Similar to other Water/Sewer Main Reimbursement projects in Foxfire and Surrounding Areas, the tap fees associated with tying on to this line will be waived by the City for the following lot: Lot Block Subdivision Phase Owner 9RA n/a Sandstone n/a Hubbard Kennady This waiver does not include, in any form, the construction cost of the individual seniice lines or any street repair associated with this construction. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. I can be reached at 764-3570 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Sincerely, ~~ Samantha Smith Engineering Assistant cc: Jim Callaway Lisa Hankins Shirley Volk Wendy Leinhart file Printed by Natalie Thomas 8/22/95 3:14pm Sandstone Addition Will need a 20 ft. easement to cover exsisting power line. Myrna's Cove No Comments Page: 2 * * * ~ ~ ~ ~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1101 TEXAS AVE. COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET TO: ~ ., -~ .......... I COMPANY: .~ ~ ~ ~ ~r PHONE: FAX: i ~ ~1 ~- FROM: ~~' ~ ~~ °~ COMPANY: PHONE: ~( ~~ ~- ~ 1..j` FAX: DATE: ,~- ~~ -a (409) 764-3570 (409) 764-3496 FAX PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: § 212.012 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE §.212.012. Connection of Utilities (a) An entity described by Subsection (b) may not serve or connect any land with water, sewer, electrici- ty, gas, or other utility service unless the entity has been presented with or otherwise holds a certificate applicable to the land issued under Section 212.0115. (b) The prohibition established by Subsection (a) applies only to: (1) a municipality and officials of a municipality that provides water, sewer, electricity, gas, or other utility service; (2) a municipally owned or municipally operated utility that provides any of those services; (3) a public utility that provides any of those services; (4) a water supply or sewer service corporation organized and operating under Chapter 76, Acts of the 43rd Legislature, 1st Called Session, 1933 (Arti- cle 1434a, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes), that pro- vides any of those services; (5) a county that provides any of those services; and (6) a special district or authority created by or under state law that provides any of those services. (c) This section does not apply to any area covered by a development plat duly approved under Subchap- ter B or under an ordinance or rule relating to the development plat. (d) The prohibition established by Subsection (a) applies only to land that an entity described by Sub- section (b)(1), (2), or (3) first serves or first connects with services on or after September 1, 1987. The prohibition applies only to land that an entity de- scribed by Subsection (b)(4), (5), or (6) first serves or first connects with services on or after September 1, 1989. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Amend- ed by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 46(b), eff. Aug. 28, 1989; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 624, § 3.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. § 212.013. Vacating Plat (a) The proprietors of the tract covered by a plat may vacate the plat at any time before any lot in the plat is sold. The plat is vacated when a signed, acknowledged instrument declaring the plat vacated is approved and recorded in the manner prescribed for the original plat. (b) If lots in the plat have been sold, the plat, or any part of the plat, may be vacated on the application of all the owners of lots in the plat with approval obtained in the manner prescribed for the original plat. (c) The county clerk shall write legibly on 1;he va- cated plat the word "Vacated" and shall enter on the plat a reference to the volume and page at whiich the vacating instrument is recorded. (d) On the execution and recording of the vacating instrument, the vacated plat has no effect. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. § 212.014. Replatting Without Vacating Preced- ing Plat A replat of a subdivision or part of a subdivision may be recorded and is controlling over the preceding plat without vacation of that plat if the replat: (1) is signed and acknowledged by only the own- ers of the property being replatted; (2) is approved, after a public hearing on the matter at which parties in interest and citizens have an opportunity to be heard, by the municipal au- thority responsible for approving plats; and (3) does not attempt to amend or remove any covenants or restrictions. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. 212.015. Additional Requirements for Curtain Replats (a) In addition to compliance with Section 212.014, a replat without vacation of the preceding plat must conform to the requirements of this section if: (1) during the preceding five years, any of the area to be replatted was limited by an interim or permanent zoning classification to residential use for not more than two residential units per lot; or (2) any lot in the preceding plat was limited by deed restrictions to residential use for not more than two residential units per lot. (b) Notice of the hearing required under Section 212.014 shall be given before the 15th day before the date of the hearing by: (1) publication in an official newspaper or a niews- paper of general circulation in the county in which the municipality is located; and (2) by written notice, with a copy of Subsection (c) attached, forwarded by the municipal authority responsible for approving plats to the owners of lots that .are in the original subdivision and that are within 200 feet of the lots to be replatted, as indicat- ed on the most recently approved municipal tai,: roll or in the case of a subdivision within the extraten-i- 314 LAeIrD USE & RELATED ACTIVITIES tonal jurisdiction, the most recently approved coun- ty tax roll. of the property upon which the replat is requested, The written notice may be delivered by depositing the notice, properly addressed with post- age prepaid, in a post office or• postal depository within the boundaries of the municipality. (c) If the proposed replat requires a variance and is protested in accordance with this subsection, the pro- posed replat must receive, in order to be approved, the affirmative vote of at least three-fourths of the members present of the municipal planning commis- sion or governing body, or both. For a legal protest, written instruments signed by the owners of at least 20 percent of the area of the lots or land immediately adjoining the area covered by the proposed replat and extending 200 feet from that area, but within the original subdivision, must be filed with the municipal planning commission or governing body, or both, prior to the close of the public hearing. (d) In computing the percentage of land area under Subsection (c), the area of streets and. alleys shall be included. (e) Compliance with Subsections (e) and (d) is not. required for approval of a replat of part of a preceding plat if the area to be replatted was designated or reserved for other than single or duplex family resi- dential use by notation on the last legally recorded plat or in the legally recorded restrictions applicable to the plat. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept- 1, 1987. Amend- ed by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 345, §§ 2 to 5, eff. Aug. 28, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 1046, § 3, eff. Aug. 30, 1993. § 212.016. Amending Plat (a) The municipal authority responsible for approv- ing plats may approve and issue an amending plat, which may be recorded and is controlling over the preceding plat without vacation of that plat, if the amending plat is signed by the applicants only and is solely for one or more of the following purposes: (1) to correct an error in a course or distance shown on the preceding plat; (2) to add a course or distance that was omitted on the preceding plat; (3) to correct an error in a real property descrip- tion shown on the preceding plat; (4) to indicate monuments set after the death, disability, or retirement from practice of the engi- neer or surveyor responsible for setting monu- menu; (5) to show the location or character of a monu- ment that has been changed in location or character § 212.Oa7 or that is shown incorrectly as to location or charac- ter on the preceding plat; (6) to correct any other type of scrivener or clerical error or omission previously approved by the municipal authority responsible for approving plats, including lot numbers, acreage, street names, and identification of adjacent recorded plats; (7) to correct an error in courses and distances of lot lines between two adjacent lots if: (A) both lot owners join in the application for amending the plat; (B) neither lot is abolished; (C) the amendment does not attempt to re- move recorded covenants or restrictions; and (D) the amendment does not have a material adverse effect on the property rights of the other owners in the plat; (S) to relocate a lot line to eliminate an inadver- tent encroachment of a building or other improve- ment on a lot line or easement; (9) to relocate one or more lot lines bet~reen one or more adjacent lots if: (A) the owners of all those lots join in the application for amending the plat; (B) the amendment does not attempt to re- move recorded covenants or restrictions; and (C) the amendment does not increase the mrm- ber of lots; or (10) to make necessary changes to the preceding plat to create six or fewer lots in the subdivision or a part of the subdivision covered by the preceding plat if: (A) the changes do not affect applicable zoning and other regulations of the municipality; (B) the changes do not attempt to amend) or remove any covenants or restrictions; and (C) the area covered by the changes is located in an area that the municipal planning commis- sion or other appropriate governing body of the municipality has approved, after a public hearing, as a residential improvement area. (b) Notice, a hearing, and the approval of other lot owners are not required for the approval and issuance of an amending plat. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Amend- ed by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 46(b), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 212.017. Conflict of Interest; Penalty (a) In this section, "subdivided tract" means a tract of land, as a whole, that is subdivided. The term does Tex focal Govt 9a - 13 315 stalls, barns, pens,••4-:tent 'houses,. oYer $4000/m0 rent, res subdivision potential, $450,000, owner & agent, 'Hermann Realty, 696-0795 '1.96 ACRE .waterfront lot In Sandstone addition In CS, $35,000perac,846-7880 ; • _ TEXAS LAND COMPANY , 108 ACRES ` `` Hwy 21 Eo $1QQ0/Acre. wlu _.__.__ April 7, 1992 John & Diane Stropp 8900 Sandstone Dr. College Station, Texas 77845 Dear John & Diane: This letter is given in answer to your letter of March 26, 1992, Your letter was in request of subdividing Lot 9R into two lots one of which would be 2.21 acres and the other being 1.72 acres. As we discussed at an earlier date and-based on receiving a written request, I would visit with as many of the property owners as possible to ask their opinions regarding your request. In fairness to all that I visited with I promised to keep all opinions expressed in confidence. Their were many comments given along with the concern of setting a precedent for future similar requests. Their were concerns as to changing the intent of the neighborhood and to restricting a view that is most pleasant and one that would like to be preserved. The question was brought up by a number of people I thought no lot could be subdivided smaller than the smallest lot in Sandstone ". All your friends and neighbors were very concerned not to hurt your feelings or make you mad by expressing their opinions. All spoke very highly of you and Diane and no comment was made without the utmost. of respect. John after visiting with Wick McKean, one of the Architectural Control Committee members, and discussing your plans along with the feelings and opinions of the neighborhood we feel that your request would not be within the intent or best interest of the subdivision. Therefore, and for the reasons expressed, we must decline your request. John I truly hope that both you and Diane understand our decision and hope that it does not harm a valued friendship. Their are many things that I would rather do than write this letter. Sincer 1 , Tony J ne & Wick McKean Architectural Control Committee i J ' ~ . ~/ l CC: All property owners in Sandstone Subdivision. TONY JONgS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RESTRICTIONS CONTINUED: ~ INC. and W. A. AicK1;AN the date of this instrument, and approtial required by this paragraph shall not be requireu unless, prior to saiu date and effective thereon, the then record owners of a majority of the lots subject hereto shall execute and file for record an instrument appo'.lnting a reprosdutative or rapre;sentatives, who shall thereafter exercise the sarue powers and duties granted herein to the Architectural Control Committee. Ttie Committee's approval or diaap~roval as r®quir~sd heroin, shall be in writing. If t}~e Committee, or its designated representative fails to give written approval or disapproval within thirty (30) days after plans and specifications have been submitted to it, or in any event, if no suit to enjoin improvements has i~ec~n brought, approval .will not be required aYid the reslated covenants shall be deemed to have boon fully satisfied. Thv deviations in building area acid location in instanca9 where, its judgraant, such deviation will result in a wore commonly beneficial use. Such approval roust be granted in writing and when given will become a part of these restrictions. li~y}:LLING SI ZE~ AND CONSTRUCTION The heated area of each main residential structure, exclusive of open or screened porches, open terraces, and garages, shall not be less than 1,ti00 square feet, and a minimum of 1,500 square feet of heated. area on the ground floor for a ono ar~d ono-half or two story residential structure. BUILDING LOCATION No building or fence shall be located on any lot nearer to the fY~ont lot line t}ian 50 feet nor nearer to the side :lot line than. Z5 foot riot nearer to the rear lot line than 25 :Feet. LOT AREA AND WIDTH No lot nor lots within the addition may be resubdivided or in any way reduced iri size without written permission of the Architectural Control Committee. NUISANCES No noxis~us or offensive activity shall be p®rmitted upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or become any annoyance or nuisance to the iteighborliood. '1'lih!PORARY STRUCTt)RI:S No structure of a temporary ci;aracter, trailer, ba.sener~t, ~~io~7e hor^c:, t~',~t ~`'~^~~ ^°r'F:^, barn ^r ether outbuildin.f,s rimali uo usea oi: a,ly log dt a~iy tine as .~. rc;siaer~co either temporaril or permanently. ~SIGN4 2~fo signs of any kind shall be displayed to the F>ublic view on any lot except ono sign of not more than five square fe®t adver-tisinb t}ie property for. sale or rout, or signs .used by a builder to advertise the property during the construction and sales period. >IL r1NLJ l~fItJING OPEi:ATI(_~NS refining F r ~~ TONY ,TONg5 CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RESTRICTIONS CONTINUED: INC. and W. A. A1cKEAN royal required by this paragraph the data of this instrument, anXiorpto saiu date and offectj.ve shall not ba requirau unless, } o:f.nting thereon, t}~e t}ian record ownel's °f ec~oraoantinstrumantoappsub ec liare~to shall execute and file for r who shall thereafter exercise a reprvsantative: or re}~r`senrantadsherein to the Ar,chi~ov~i'rnl the same powers ailci duties S royal or disap~ Control Co~umittee. T}ie Committe®'s aPP If the Committee, as requir~sd heroin, shall be in writing. iYe written approval or .its designated roprasentati30 (days after plans and specifications or disapproval within thirty ( ) even t if no suit to enjoin Dave boon submitted to it, or in any uire:d improvements has been brought, approval will not be req anc: t}~c slat©d covenants shall bed~n~=m area°aI,dvlocationuiny satisfied. The deviations in byuch deviation will resulra~nted instances w}iere, its judgra®nt, a wore commonly beneficial ull•become appartaofwthesegrestrictions. in writing andwhirl, given wi ll~u1vLLING 5IZE~ AND CONSTRUCTION The heated ar®a of each main oeendtarracestranaU18ara8es, exclusive of open or screened porches, 1 all not be iESS thaIl 1,ti00 sc}uar® feet, and a minimum o!' 1,500 sh round floor for a one and square feet of heateu. aresa on the g one-half or two story residential structure. BUILDING LOCATION No building or fence shall be located on any lot nearer to the fY~ont lot line t}ian 50 feehenrearelotrlinetthani25 feet. line than Z5 feet nor nearer tv t LOT AREA AND WIDTH No lot nor lots within the addition may be reaubdivided reduced in siz® without written permission of or in any NaY the Arehitectural Centre's Cos~ittee. NUISANCES No noxious or offensive activity shall be p®rmltted ,,.,,,~, A„v _lot ..nor shall anything be done thereon which may be Tom ~o~s 4475 Hicks Lane College Station, Texas 77845 (409) 776-6111 October 11,1995 Mr. Larry Ringer, Mayor City of College Station P. O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77840: !~~'~ ~ ~~- '~~~ ~'i RE: E. Hubbard Kennady's letter of September 28,1995. ~~~- Dear Mayor Ringer: This response is given in regard to Mr. Kennady's letter addressing his application. to subdivide lot 9R in the Sandstone Subdivision of College Station. I was the original developer of the subdivision, and have worked hard to design, develop and maintain the original idea into its conclusion. This is one of five requests to subdivide a existing lot. All of the requests but two have gone to the point that we have reached in this matter. All the others were by verbal request. When defined the intent and objective all were dropped except for Mr. Kennady's. I have served as an Architectural Committee Member for its existence until my formal resignation in August of this year. I write this letter on behalf of all the people that have purchased homes, lots or that I have either built or renovated their homes and all those owners both new and original that live in Sandstone. All including Mr. Kennady must have seen and felt a desire and pride or they would not have built or bought homes in this neighborhood. Most including :Mr. Kennady were knowledgeable of the restrictions, views and intents of the Subdivi;>ion, all of which make it unique. When I first read Mr. Kennady's letter I was angry at the way he had attempted to make something ugly out of a subdivision with as much personality and beauty that now exists. He has in numerous occasions used comments out of context, or made accusations or comments that were knowingly incorrect. In all matters of disagreement there are usually a number of opinions and sometimes false statements. Mr. Kennady has chosen to attack me or criticize my actions on a number of occasions that are not to his best interest as it relates to his. requested subdividing of lot 9R. If I am guilty of anything it is for caring enough for those people that I have made commitments tc- or have assisted in some manner to make their home or neighborhood a reality of its original design and intent. Sandstone is not and was not a money driven issue in my life. The second, third and fourth owners are the ones that have benefited financia]~ly from their sales. It was these sales along with. the spaciousness of land, location and the personal investments of so. many that has made Sandstone such a desired place to live. That specialness was hoped for in the beginning but was accomplished by those who live or have lived in this subdivision. In part Sandstone is special because it has kept its image and definition intact. The eighteen lots that form the majority of Sandstone are all built on and developed as originally intended. That is to the benefit of all those who live in Sandstone. ' :Page 2 Sandstone as exists stands to loose some of its character by permitting the breaking; down of lot sizes into smaller parcels or lots. This in itself is alarming to those owners in Sandstone for fear of a precedence being set. What is to stop further subdivision within Sandstone? There are a number of lots that can be subdivided and far exceed the ordinances of College Station. Sandstone is not a new and beginning subdivision but over fifteen years young and fully developed as intended for lots 1-18. In visiting with some of the owners, reading others' views in their letters and statements it is not "7 of 20 neighbors" but the vast majority of over twelve of seventeen neighbors that have very strong feelings about Mr. Kennady's request. I hope you will consider all their opinions and weigh their desires as a neighborhood when arriving at your decision. I realize, as do all the owners in Sandstone, that the City of College Station does not police or enforce deed restrictions. There is a feeling by the majority of owners in Sandstone that the Council as a whole does care about the neighborhoods and the feelings of the owners within those neighborhoods. We all respectfully request your weighing of these opinions in reaching your final decision. On many occasions over the years, I have heard the comment made by numerous Councilmen that just because it meets the ordinances does not mean it is right for the area. The remainder of this letter will be in response to issues, so called facts, violations and illegal resubdivisions. Mr. Kennady quotes "There are a number of misstatements being propagated that must first be immediately corrected before I inform you of the violations surrounding this case". The following are my disputes to Mr. Kennady's noted facts and charges. Fact Number One: As a matter of record, by recorded plat, there have been only four (4) subdivision/re subdivisions in Sandstone as of 10/10/95. Fact Number Two & Mr. & Mrs. Startzman didn't move to College Station until Three 1982. It was in fact Mr. & Mrs. Lamb, the first owner of lot #9, that requested to purchase part of the pond lot, #10,, so they could make some improvements and they preferred to own the property that was being improved. We discussed and we approved the resubdivision as long as it was understood that the lot would not be resubdivided. I agreed at the Lamb's request to increase the size of their lot as large as possible. At the time of this request, we, the Architectural Control Committee, had placed by agreed to policy th2~t no lot would be subdivided smaller that 1.97 acres. Therefore, a lot was formed by adding 1.9b + 1.97 acres that equals 3.93 acres, and by agreement could not be resubdivided. Irt regard to the language "Lot not suitable for building" the following is given for your information: When Sandstone was first started, it was a rural subdivision and not a part of the City of College Station. The county requested that since the E. T. J. of the city that the city Page 3 approve the subdivision request prior to bringing it to the County Commissioners Court for final approval. The plat was approved by the City of College Station, without this language on the plat. It was during the final plat approval that Walter Wilcox brought out a concern of the County Health Department regarding Lot #10 and the septic system/sewerability. This was because of a setback requirement of seventy-five feet. from the water's edge for all septic. lines. I explained that the pond as shown on the plat, not to scale, and was smaller than shown. I also explained that at the time I was planning on keeping lot #10 for. personal use since I was going to build in Sandstone myself. A suggestion was made something to the following: Would I mind placing verbiage on the plat that this lot was not be constructed on with septic systems. I t was pointed oust that the City of College Station's city limit lines were parallel and abutting our property lines. It was also discussed that 'we would surely be annexed at some future time with sewer being available and eliminating the concern of a septic system. This was an open public hearing and should be available for verification. Since we were annexed and sewer was made available the lot is aid was a buildable lot. Fact Number Four: I have no comment because I have not read or have not seen the letter from Mr. Eikenhorst. Fact Number Five: I can only comment on Mr. Stropp's attempt to resubd:ivide lot #9R. I visited with Mr. Stropp in regard to his wish to resubdivide lot 9R. I explained the history behind lots !9R and 10R and the formula for which 9R became 3.93 acres. I requested that if he wanted to submit information to define his wishes that I would show and visit with the neighbors to receive their opinions. I told Mr. Stropp that if the owners did not object that we would approve the request. The finding was almost unanimous. The wishes of the neighborhood was for no resubdivision of any lots. Therefore, we issued a letter to Mr. Stropp, denying his request. Mr. Kennady was aware of the Stropp attempt to subdivide the lot and the denial when he purchased lot 9R. In that the neighborhood seems orated to keep the subdivisions the same as was originally intended. I hope the council will consider the neighborhood's opinion and feelings when arriving at a final decision. Page 4 Fact Number Six: No, there has not been a park dedication because it wa;> not required. As to a "visual easement" by deed, no there is not :one. The visual easement was by design when lot 9 was first sold to the Lambs back in 1978. It was agreed that I would sell to them based on their house being located in the t~~ees to the North end of the lot and not to the South end of they lot. The reason being was for the view as to the lots #3 and #4 which I later built my home. I was prepared to construct a speculative home on lot 9 to protect the view. The Lambs agreed and the "visual easement" that has existed since 1978 has been there for all to view and .appreciate. Also, lot ~#19 is a fifteen acre park for everyone's use. Fact Number Seven: The neighbors have not forgotten because all but two purchased their respective lots after lot 9R was changed to the now recorded 2.28 acres. Lots one, three, four and rune were the only lots sold at the time of the resubdivision. Since the Lambs and myself were the only parties involved and the first owners of the subdivision. Comments are now offered regarding the "Numerous violations of restrictive covenant provisions" 1. No comment 2. In February 1978 a public hearing was held at the City of College Station regarding the resubdivisions of lot 9 and 10 to lots 9R and 10R. Mr. ICennady states throughout his letter a number of times the words "unilateral Changes" to any changes made. In fact the first change in February was for the advanta€;e and request of Mr. and Mrs. Lamb. I did receive a monetary compensation of about $900 plus costs for almost doubling the size of their lot. Permission for the resubdivision is on the plat as recorded. 3. In 1982 I did request by public hearing to change lots 3, 4, and 5 in to lots 3IZ and 5R. This was for my personal benefit. I constructed my home in regard to and relation of the location of existing trees. There were at -that time, and still are, some very large oak trees that we designed the house around. All subdivision regulations and city ordinances were followed and past in a public hearing without controversy. Lot 5R was changed at the same time from 2.44 acres i:o 2.60 acres in that I built my parents a home on lot 5, which they still live, and gave theme this acreage in that it encompassed a rather large garden of which my mother and father worked in daily and shared the crops with everyone in t]l~e subdivision. 4. "Missing -According to City Records" regarding resubdivision of lots 5R and 3R to lots 3R, 4R and 5R are recorded in a plat submitted in October 1984 but n.ot filed until January 1985. This was also done by public hearing and approved without controversy. There were still eighteen lots in the main part of the subdivisions as exists today. 5. This item was covered in item #4 of his letter. I'm confused as to his question or reasoning. Page 5 6. Regarding Lot 14 being divided into Lots 14A and 14B the following reasons are given from research I have made these last few days. Mr. and Mrs. Fletcher owns the land immediately to the east of lot #14 and Sandstone Drive. The Fletchers requested from Mr. and Mrs. Hanna to purchase a portion of their lot as it extends south on Sandstone so they would have both access and utility easement for water. It was necessary for the Fletchers to Ytave a fire hydrant within five hundred feet of their home to get a building permit and water usage. Access/Utility easement was not satisfactory for the loan as it related to the Fletchers. Therefore a resubdivision of lot 14 was permitted allowing the ownership of 14A to the Fletchers. This lot,14A is labeled "This lot is totally a utility easement" thereby not allowing any construction to be permitted on lot 14A. 7. (Prior Illy Resubdivision of lot #20?) I am aware of the sale of a parcel of land being approximately ten acres being sold by Wick McKean to the College Station School District. In visiting with Mr. McKean in these last few days it was his recollection that the School District was to handle the replating of lot #20. In that it is not the responsibility of the Architectural Committee to go out and solicit such a replat. I assume when there is building request or a possible further sale of this property that someone ~Nill realize what is necessary and follow the required procedures and request formal approval of the Architectural Committee and the City of College Station. In. that from the original drafting of the Deed Restrictions, Lots 19 and 20 were the only considerable lots to be subdivided into smaller parcels but only with a harmonious lot sizes that exist in the remainder of the subdivision. Lot #19 was sold to the City of College Station as is being used as a city park. To the best of my knowledge there are no illegal subdivisions that exist, just further steps necessary by other to bring into compliance. The staff of the City of College Station is knowledgeable of these matters. In regards to Mr. Kennady's allegation that the restrictions of Sandstone are being; unilaterally discriminatorily ignored I most adamantly disagree. I believe both the Architectural Control Committee and the owners within Sandstone have been and are acting in accordance with the restrictions. Sandstone started with twenty lots and is still twenty lots. The original intent was not to create more than eighteen lots in the main part of the subdivision and that lots 19 and 20 were the only lots to be resubdivided as buildable lots. If there is any variance in this policy it was in lots 14A and 14B. This was satisfied by making lot 14A a utility easement and making it non- buildable. There was never, not did I admit or say there was a prohibition against subdividing in the deed restriction. Our attorney, Mr. Tom Giesenschlag, drafted the deed restrictions and placed the verbiage accordingly so that it would allow subdivision of lots, with architectural approval. It was suggested by an owner within Sandstone that it would be better to have owners of land in Sandstone as Architectural Control members. In accordance I asked both Ron Eikenhorst and Bruce Miles to become members. At first both accepted the position but Mr. Miles withdrew him name because of an extra work load at that particular time. r` Page 6 Since the members are listed in a recorded document, my attorney advised us to handle the appointments in the same manner.. This was in 1992. When Mr. Kennady placed his "FOR SALE" sign on the lot the controversy started again. I immediately asked both Ron Eikenhorst and Bruce Miles if they may still have an interest of r-eing members of the Architectural Control Committee. They agreed, I drafted the appointments, received their signatures of appointment and filed as of record, along with the deed restrictions, their appointments. Sandy and I resigned from the committee and also filed with the deed restrictions. These appointments were requested prior to Mr. Kennady's purchasing lot 9R. Therefore, I see no problem with their appointment. I am angered at Mr. Kennady's many attempts to twist words, use half truths and no truths to try and make himself look persecuted. When in fact Mr. Kennady knowing the immediate past history with Mr. Stropp's proposal purchased lot 9R and now is trying to manipulate and intimidate his neighbors for his own personal monetary gain at the expense of his neighbors. I, like Mr. Kennady, have served on this council and as a member have seen many occasions requests made that followed the guidelines of the City of College. Station and yet were denied because of the neighborhood's strong feeling. This is not a letter for my gain but for the friends, neighbors and owners within the Sandstone Subdivision. I am very surprised at Mr. Kennady's accusations and attempt to cause such a stir within a neighborhood and then plans to immediately leave the subdivision and build elsewhere. I can only imagine the reactions of owners in subdivisions like Foxfire, Emerald Forest, Indian Trails, Southwood Forest or Pebble Creek to have a similar request based on meeting the requirements of the City of College Station. In closing, Sandstone is a unique subdivision and one with pride as shown in thf~ investments made throughout all the neighborhood. I understand the City of College Station does not police or defend deed restrictions. I do believe as history shows the Councils of the City of College Station have defended and protected the neighborhoods based on their expressed feelings as it relates to living areas. I respectfully request the Council deny this request when it is brought for a decision. Thank you for your i:ime and- consideration. Sincerely, Tony Jones cc: All Council Members Wiek McKean Bruce Miles Ron Eikenhorst ~~ nes ~ed ~-d nd ks ve he .ill de gal its a matter of trusting a city councilman - An .open letter ,to College Station Councilman Hub Kennady: Hub: Don't do it. Councilman Kennady has an applica- tion pending before the. College Station `City Council to, replat his existing resi- dential lot into` two pieces... He wants to sell the ,other ha]f-so that someone.-can` `build another house there. And that's not all. He'll then sell his ' existing house on the other-half lot and -then move out:: after he's made a lot of money. The only drawback is the neighborhood (Sandstone subdivision), deed rests xc Ty tions which prohibit reducing lot saes„ without the perrn?ssion of the local"archi„`' tectural ` coxYtrai: riommittee., They: don t .agree to h'is req~iest. They didn't agree to a similar re~u~st by. his predecessor in that house and~lot beforehand. This isn't stopping Hub. He's looking for,.. ~' any loophole to make his application workAnd he's missing he point. He -may win - a legal: battle;.. but he will have Xost the trust of a lot of people in'the process. .This is not some land developer. that's 'attempting to circumvent deed restrc- Lions; it's a city councilman. How can at}yone trust him after this? If he won't; ;even ,listen to his own neigh- hors, how can ;anyone else in the' ,city - pelieve, ,that; die ;will listen to them? Hub, before it's too late, ,withdraw this . pets-, tion. Xou'll be trading money for trust. ~Igybethat's not a :good trade for you. - $ut it's very important for the rest of us. More than syour neighbors :will notice {his.. . GERALD MILLER College Station ;' :x;._ ,_ ~;/ ~ ~ ,a ~-rC~ L ~~ :~.~.~ .~--- h .~ R., lr" ~" ` 1.. ~-" ;... ~~~ r. ~ ff~~ i' . .. ~~ ~. ~ ,,~ __ _.. ; n i~ ~`_ i` ~~-~~3 AMERICAN RESEARCH CENTER IN EGYPT 2, MIDAN KASR AL-DUBARA GARDEN CITY, CAIRO I 146 I EGYPT Planning and Zoning City of College Station PO Box 9960 1101 Texas Ave. College Station, TX 77842-0960 September 30, 1995 Dear Members, We are writing regarding Replat of lot 9R of the Sandstone Addition. We own the house and land at 8801 Sandstone Drive. We have received today the letteir regarding the Public Hearing on this issue. As you can tell by the above we are currently at work in Egypt and were thus unable to attend the hearing. If we had, we would have spoken out against this replat. The same issue arose several years ago with the previous owner of 9R. We objected then and object now and will so do in the future for the same reasons. We believe it contravenes the nature and quality of the subdivision. We bought our home there specifically because of the large lots and low density. This replat is certaiinly intended to change the plot and density. To even consider replating without approval of the Architectural Control Committee is a blatant disregard of the binding subdivision restrictions all subdivision owners agreed to when they purchased Sandstone property and is a blatant disregard of the wishes of the subdivision community. The current plotholder knew of this entire situation before he bought the property. It does not engender confidence in the democratic and legal process of College Station if a member of the City Council does not recognize and abide by these restrictions. It certainly-.does not engender community spirit in the subdivision. We want to go on record as opposing this replat now or at anytime. Yours sincerely, o~ ~~~ Robert and Frances Vincent cc: City Council August 20 ,1995 City Manager College Station City Hall College Station Texas 77840 Dear Sir I am writing concerning the efforts of city councilman Kennedy's efforts to subdivide and sell a piece of personal real estate in our subdivision ,Sandstone .Please see ad ,attachment # 1. They restrictions are very specific about prohibiting such action w~hout the approval of the architectual committee . Please see attachment # 2. Nat only has that not been done ,but the those of us who have just bin made aware of this action are apposed to if . We recognize that Wayne Thomas , another influential citizen ,was able to buy a subdividled lot from Richard Startzman .Despite the fact that Thomas was. roamed about the water problems , he built anyway . As your engineers probably know , he was forced to cut the dam on the lake adjacent to several properties to prevent water from flooding his home .That undoubtedly precipitated Kenneday's action to sell his property . It certainly dismayed those of us that enjoyed the scenic aspects of the lake. It is interesting to note that the previous occupant ,Jahn Stropp ,was not allowed to sell ttyis same piece of property.Please see attachment # 3 . He was opposed by Mr. Startzman who coincidentally later sold the lot to Mr. Thomas. Neither was Mr. Stropp a city official .While one may argue precedent ,that does not make it acceptable in either case. The 10 acres at the end of the street owned by the CSISD is then subject to the same apportunkies to subdivide despite being under the same restrictions . If a lawyer - cauncilmember can get away w~h it ,the GSISD will have a breeze . As a member of the first Baptist Church , I served on several committees as we worked with the city on parking lot restrictions ,landscape requirements and numerous other demands far the property .You folks were unbending in enforcing the restrictions. All that is to say that I do net understand how even a city official can now ignore the property restrictions as specific as they are written, The really disappointing aspect of this matter is his intention to move to Pebble Greek once he impacts our property values in this area. Thank you for your consideration in investigating this matter. "ncerely Bru R. Miles 2017 Gakwood Trail College Station ,Texas 77845 xc Gity attorney Planning and Zoning Commission . ~~,,, ,` l~ tl ~, ,., R, [ }4. ~~ Y kM f '= (= c f.. { ~ ~~~ ~ . ~~r~~E~i~ {'~~rE~ , r~{~Eri~ ~~ E~C~{r~r ~${E~rE~{r~ ~°{~~{{a~r~ {~ ~ ~~ r~{{s~ ~r~ir~E , `~"~~ r'y~r ~~~~. ~~E°rr ~~E~{~ ~~au ~r irr~ {fir rr°r~rr ~~~~~ "{r~r~{E~ E ~~~ ~~~r~{r~ ~6"~r~sf{E~ {~r{r~c~ ~r~ err ~ , rr~{~ {~~r. {~{€~r {r~r~~° r~~~ ~ r°d~~ {~~~ {r~ ~ r1d~~rr Eire{~{{~E~.rt~k~Y , { {{I ~~ f' f~~rr r~ ~~{rE ~ E~ ~~ ~E~. a cr`r.~ {~ ~r, { ~ro~t~ {rr {~~r ~ r~rr ~ ~ ~{~{~{r~° r~~{~i~~.~E~r{ ~r~~r{ r~E~rri{~ ~~~~~:~~ ~~{E~ ~{m{ ~~{E~r ~v`1r. ~E~r1. {~{~vr , { E~n r{~{r~ ~{~~{ {~~~~r ~~ r~ ~~ r~~~r ~' rr~Ez~ ~~r~rr~~~E~r {~ ~{~ ~~' ~~ ~r~r? ~ ~{~~ v~{E~. r~ r°~{~ar~{~ ~~~r~ , ~r°. ~E~r~°~ r~~{r~ { {r~ ~E~~{{~:~ {~{~y i~~~ ~ rr~~r{r~~{~r~. {r~rc {~~ ~'{{ c ~k~{~ ~~ r~;~~E~~ ~ ~{~ c"~ , ~6 s ~~rrrr~°s~ ~~r~ ~ {~{r E`~ ~~~~~r~r ~ 4 '{ ~ ~{c{rr {~ {gig*{~{r~ {y~~,~ ~{ ~~{r~ E~ { r~. ~~~r ~r~... S@. . ~~r~nrr &n~~{~{~ ~~~rE ~~:{~ r~~~~., ~r ~.~rr~~~~E~~s~ {~r~~r~ ~r~. stn{{ ~{{{~~ r~~~~c~~~~~~ ~~~~ ti~~~~{{{ors ' ~{~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. '{~ r~j~~¢~ ~{~~{~ r~~~~~~r~~. {fir°. r~ ~r~. ~{{~r~ y~r~ r~r~~~~~'~{~r ~3ar~{{~{~E~ ~ ~~~~~{r~ {~ , ~~ ~ r~ ~{m{; ~a~~{~s{ {~~E'. {~E~E`3~.~ ~C~~ ~~ ~~~~r" ~{E"E~ rE^$sr{r~ ~Er~{~; ~~ ~c~{~~'~E"E ~{~: , rr E`k" "~ {~~ E~r~r~~~E° {~~ ~~~ r~Y ~~r.~r r~r{~;~ ~dr~ err ~~~ ~~~{~ ~~' ~{~~ {~~ ~ ~~~~; ~{~ r~rr~~r~~. ~~ r~~r{~{~:~rc~ r n~r Er~~r~r~~~ria r~{~r~irE {r~ ~~~~ ~~~{{~E~. `~5~ r~{ e~~ ~~~~r, {~,~~rrrc° r~~r~~-0~, ~E~{y~ a ~~ ~xr~{ ~~E~~{~ ~{~~~ ~~~ r~~'~~rE~EE m~ , {~~~ E~ grE{~~ {~4~ ~~ ~~rc~~~:r~~ ~"r c~~~~r ~r•~a~~ {r~ ~{~ ;~~r~~~r~~ ~{~{{r~. ~ ~~ ~{~>~ {~~r. r~r~~ {~ t~ {{ t{7 {~~.~ f {rye{~ar~{r°r ~{~ r~ ~~{{~ ~~{~a ra ~ r~a~ ~~~ ErE°~{~~rr~~: ~ ~~~~ {~p~,~~d , r~~ {~ ~~r~{E~EI~ {r~~ ~h {{{ ~{irr r~Er~~~ ~~r~ ~~{~r r{r~E~~~ ~~vE• ~~~{ {rar. {~~~ ~{gyp E~ {~~r {;~ ~{ ~~ ~{{ ~r ~~r{a r~~~~ ~{r~ ~ E~~~ ~~d~ ~~~ ~~d{~~ r~rE~~. ~~~~ ~ ~`~{~r~y°~ggd~~~p ~'r~~vpp{ °{{~ w,~6GRW 8k~Cr%p F~.4M"de&Se~~ d ~"w3'~n'nd April 7, 1992 John & Diane Stropp 8900 Sandstone Dr. College Station, Texas 77845 Dear John & Diane: This letter is given in answer to your letter of March 26, 1992. Your letter was in request of subdividing Lot 9R into two lots one of which would be 2.21 acres and the other being 1.72 acres. As we discussed ait an earlier date and based on receiving a written request, I would visiit -with as many of the property owners as possible to ask their opinions regarding your request. In fairness to all that I visited with I promised to keep all opinions expressed in confidence. Their were many comments given along with thE~ concern of setting a precedent for future similar requests. Their were concerns as to changing the intent of the neighborhood and to restricting a view that is most pleasant and one that would like to be preserved. The question was brought up by a number of people I thought no lot could be subdivided smaller than the smallest lot in Sandstone ". All your friends and neighbors were very concerned not to hurt your feelings or make you mad by expressing their opinions. All spoke very highly of you and Diane and no comment was made without the utmost.. of respect. John after visiting with Wick McKean, one of the Architectural Control Committee members, and discussing your plans along with the feelings and opinions of the neighborhood we feel that your request would not be within the intent or best interest of the subdivision. Therefore, and for thE~ reasons expressed, we must decline your request. John I truly hope that both you and Diane understand our decision and hope that it does not harm a valued friendship. Their are many things that I would rather do than write this letter. Si ncer 1 l , ,, f Lb ~ Tony J ne & Wick McKean Architectural Control Committee CC: All property owners in Sandstone Subdivision. ~~ .-. Mr. Hub Kennedy 8900 Sandstone College Station 77845 Dear Nub Your subdividing of yaur let at 8800 Sandstone without the approval of the Sandstane Subdivision's Architectural Central Committee (ACC) is in violation of the subdivision's restrictions as recorded on February 24 ,1978.Thase restrictions state in part , " No lot nor lets within the addition may be subdivided ar in any way reduced in sire without the written permission of the Achitectural Control Committee." As you are aware, the previous owner (Jahn Strapp} of your property was tamed dawn in his request to subdivide this same lot . ~ See letter dated April 7,1992.) As to the Wayne Thomas let , the infarmatian I have is that it was a true lot in the first plat and was sold by Mr. Richard Start man to Mr. Thomas. All of of us are aware of the deleterious effect that the resulting construction has had on your property and the aesthetic effect of the pond that abuts yaur property .While this may appear irrelevant to the current issue , it is the type of result that we hope to avoid when it falls within the authority of the Achitectural Control Committee. The city has responded to my letter of August 20 ,1095, that it has na authority to enforce deed restrictions .. !n a letter dated August 23 ,1995 . City Manager George Nae states , " Councilman Kennedy ....can subdivide the lot as long as he meets all the criteria set forth in the subdivision regulations ." C7bviausfy you have not met the ACC approval regulation. At the request of a significant number of the residents of the Sandstane Subdivision the Architectural Control Committee requests that you withdraw the portion of yaur subdivided lot from i,he market. RespectfuBly /~ ~ ~ ________ Dr. Ronald Eikenhorst Wick Mc Kean ruc Miles Architectural Central Committee XC Planning & Zoning Commission City Manager George K. Noe Richard A Startzman, PhD Registered Professional Engineer 2009 Oakwood Trail College Station,Texas 77845 Phone: (409) 693-1043 e-snail: starman(c~bihs.com 917/95 Phaluiing Colmnission City of College Station P.O.Box 9960 College Station,TX 77842-0960 Dear Sir: This letter is regard to the notice we received about the replat of lot 9R ii the Sandstone Addition. WE regret that WE will be unable to attend the meetings on Sept 21 and Oct 12 due to business trips out of the U. S. on these dates. As the owner of Sandstone lot 8, a property next to the proposed replated property, WE have an interest ii any zolnlllg action taken on lc-t 9R. We have the fohlowiig comments on this replat: 1. When our family moved to Sandstone ii 1982 we were told by the realtors that Sandstone lots could not be subdivided ulnless agreed to by the Architectural Control Colmnittee (ACC). This colnlnittee, consistilg of sandstone neighbors, has a policy of not subdividing lots so that a replat would be smaller than the smallest lot it existence at the time we purchased our home. We understood that lot 9R, in particular, would not be subdivided. Iu any event, the Sandstone covenants require that all replats be approved by the ACC. To our knowledge, the lot 9R replat has not been approved. 2. Mr Jolm Stropp, the person who owned lot 9R before Mr Kelmady, attempted to subdivide lot 9R and was meet by opposition by several of his sandstone neighbors. Mr Stropp, respecting the views of leis neighbors, elected not to subdivide the lot. 3. Mr Kelulady bought the lot from Mr Stropp several years ago. We believe that Mr Kemlady knew about neighborhood opposition to replatting this lot before he bought it. 4. Mr. Kelulady told us of leis plans to replat lot 9R several weeks ago. Mr. Kelmady also told us of his belief that he could not legally. be prevented from subdividing this lot. He said that in lnis opinion, there were some precedences that indicated that the restriction was not always enforced equally. Opinions differ on this issue. Personally, we lcliow of no replat that has taken place after the last version of the covenalnt was issued iii 1978. The last replat took ~phace it February, 1978, when lot 10R took on its present shape and size. Unequal enforcement of this restriction, if it indeed has occurred, could unfairly penalize Mr. Kennady. Mr. Kennady is an attorney, and so in our discussion, we operalted under the assumption that his estimations were correct. He is also a member of the City Council, and, as such, we assumed he must be aware of zoning issues. Enforcement of the covenants is, we believe, the crucial issue in this matter. We favor fairness to all parties, but would not like to see the powers and responsibilities of the Architectural Control Committee negated without very good cause, for then the entire neighborhood v~vould suffer. 5. In returi for a promise by 1VIr. Keimady to insert a certain restriction i~ the deed fir lot 9RA (we asstuned that lis opinion that violations of the deed restriction had already taken place in Sandstone that might compromise the value of that restriction), we agreed to remaii neutral on his petition for a replat. We requested that a restriction be inserted into the deed requirilg that any driveway to a home on the proposed lot 9RA be constructed on the north side of the lot, so that it would avoid atoo-close proximity to our own driveway, which abuts the north side of our adjacent property. (we requested that Mr. Kemiady include that restriction ii his proposed plat that he submitted to the Plamliig Commmission and the City Council, so that it would be on record at the earliest possible date, but the restriction does not appear on the proposed plat sent us by the city. Nevertheless, should he be granted the permission to replat, we would fiilly expect to see that restriction included.) Our pledge of neutrality depends, of course, on the correctness of 1VIr. Kennady's opinion that the restriction is Lmenforceabhe, acid that one of our near neighbors, a member of the Architectural Control Committee, has no objection to the replat. In such a case, should permission be granted hin, we will take no action to thwart that decision. Judging from the calls we've received, this proposed replat is contrary to the wishes of a number of Sandstone residents, aild our mail concerns is not so much a personal one regarding this one property, but a concern for our community if we are not allowed to hold property owners to the agreements they accepted when they purchased their homes. Experience has told us that whoever owns lot 9RA will work diligently to subdivide it to increase their property value. But this increase will probably come at the expense of the neighboriig properties. It will also set a precedent for replattn~g properties n~ ~nolatio?a of a rP~tr~c±2o~~ that has renamed n~v~ohate for i7 years. Nevertheless, we will leave it up to the Architectural Control Committee, the Plasming Commission and the City Council to decide what is right. Siicerely, sP~ ~ w ~~ c.~v Patricia D Startzman ~~ Richard A Startzinan Le®na LoZve 8810 Sandstone Drive CoClege Station, Texas 77845 .Septembere x,1995 l~.Lannin~ tend CUninoO,, Cv.L.Le~e Station Citel fla.L.L ll0/ lexa2 rwe. South Cv.LLege Station, leza~ j~~~0 ~i ent.Lemen: Z am wnitin~ ae.Lative tv a ezvb.Lem which h~ Gecvme brown tv thv~.e v~ u~ why arse hvmevwnerc2 in the Spand~tvne Subdivi_.2ivn v~ CvL.Lege Station. lY1n. f%ubl~aezd Kennadc~ why i~ a Chou, Cvunci.Lman in Cv.L.Cec~e Station purcchcu~ed the. pnpe2tc~ at SJ00 Sand~tvne l~2ive appnvximate.L~ thaee C3~ eorearc~ adv. lhat pavperctu zUa2 pnevivu~.Lc~ vwne.d 6~ lrlrc. and lyln~. ~vhn St~zvpp. lhec~ decided to wide and .ze.L.L pant v~ that pnv-pentu a~terc theirs 2vn2 went awl tv cv.C.Le~e. 6ecauze the ~F~l) 2CSll~ZCIZONS°~ .Lain<Lc~ Mate that "NO Lol Ors LolS wz Tf~ZN ifl~ fl/~NZiZO!J 1~1~y Q~ 2~SUQ~Z~~~ orb ZN ~N~' f~~.y 2~- l~uC~ ZN SZ~~ GU'ZTf10ul i!1~ u!i2Zi~ly r~i~1ZSSZON OF if1~ ~2CNZl~CTU2~1L CONl2~OL CO~i~iZlTF~", ly1n. Strevpp wag /~~iZC/? pennzi~ivn tv ~eL.L pant v~ that pnvy~entu! NoGU, ~ln. Kennadu de~irce~ tv dv exact.C~ what l~?rc. Stn.vpp wcv~. i~Cll~Z~ i~l~l~7ZSS- ZON l0 /~0!! !~1 n . Ke.nnad~u i~ not ae~~ueht cn~ penmi~.ivn, Ne htvz put up a "fvn Sa.Le" sign vn the nvpeezt and Z unden~tand hat ire~tic~ated pnviceed- une~ with the cite v~ Cv.LLec~e ~tativn tv "l2e-%La-c'_t" the. pn.vpent~ and i2 proceeding tv c~.et the pnvpent~ 2ewened!! l'.Lecv~e hnvw that thv~e v~ u2 why arse aware v~ !~a. Kennad~i'2 hvpe~'u.L p.Larv~ are ZN/7F~17 f1~{IZNSl f~ZS ~'LfIN!! llnden~tanding that he a,L~v p.Lan~ tv .Later. move tv l'e66.Le Crcee~ vn.Ld mahe~ u2 mvrce di2p.Leaaed! !~ecau2e the flnchitectur~a.L Committee hay. ~tvvd ~inm vn this i22ue, a2 a homeowner in the Scends!tvne Subdivi~.ivn, Z a~th that ~!vu ree~u~!e tv give lhn. lCennadg penmi~~ion tv gv against the 2CSll~ZClZONS v~ the Sand~tvne Sub- divi..~ivn. brg not granting him the pnivi.Lege tv "i~Cl%L~1%% nva SCG'!C/2 the p~zvpentg at t~J~® Sand~tvne l~n ive, Co.L.Lege Stat ivrz, l exa~ ; /~v2t ~inceree.Ld, ~~ Cnc.Lv~u ne Raymond W. Loan Judith W. Childs September 13, 1995 The Planning and Zoning Connmission City of College Station Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-0960 Dear Committee Members: We are writing concerning the request of Mr. E. Hubbard Kennady III for replat of lot 9R of the Sandstone subdivision. A similar unsuccessful attempt to replat this lot wa,s made approximately three years ago by Mr. and Mrs. John Stropp. I understand that there was little or no neighborhood support for that earlier effort. The situation as it existed when Mr. and Mrs. Stropp requested replatting has not changed significantly, thus we are apposed to the division of lot 9R. Replatting of the lot is controlled by Sandstone subdivision deed restrictions which. clearly state: "No lot or lots within the subdivision may be re-subdivided or in any way reduced in size without the written permission of the Architectural Control Committee." Mr. Kennady does not have that permission, nor to our knowledge has he asked for it. The deed restrictions were available to all residents prior to the purchase of property in the subdivision. The restrictions were adopted to prevent unwanted change in the country-like setting that we enjoy and to protect property values. Should Mr. Kennady's request be approved, further replatting would appear likely and the character of the neighborhood could change remarkably. Thank you for your consideration of this request that replatting of lot 9R, Sandstone subdivision be disallowed. September 18, 1995 Planning Division City of College Station 1101 Texas Ave College Station, Texas 77842-0960 Dear Sirs, I have been notified of the application of Mr. E. Hubbard Kennady to replat lot 9R of the Sandstone Addition. This matter will be addressed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at it's regular meeting on September 21, 1995. I and the other nearby residents of the Sandstone Addition vigorously oppose this application. There are two important reasons. Firstly, the deed restrictions for this neighborhood clearly state that no subdivision of any lot can occur without the approval of the Architectural Control Committee. This committee emphatically opposes Mr. Kennady's request. In fact, they also opposed a similar request by his predecessor on that lot (and house). Secondly, the residents of this area specifically moved here to avoid other subdivisions where houses continue to crop up on top of one another.. It is odd that a city councilman, of all people, wants to do this in direct opposition to his neighbors. But what makes this even more insulting is that after splitting the lot into two parcels, he will sell the other parcel to allow a house to be constructed there; then, he intends to sell his house and the remaining parcel as well! Simply put, he intends to make as much money as he can, then sell out and move on. If citizens of our city can expect this from our city leaders, then something is very wrong! Although deed restrictions may not be binding on the city staff, P&Z or Council, I hope that strong public opinion is. As a former member of P&Z myself, I know that they. sometimes listen to citizens in such matters with a willing ear. I hope that this is such a case. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the P&Z meeting. Please convey this letter on my behalf to its members. Sincere Gerald 8901 Sandstone Drive College Station Unequal enforcement of this restriction, if it indeed has occurred, could unfairly penalize Mr. Kennady. Mr. Kennady is an attorney, and so in our discussion, we operated under the assumption that his estimations were correct. He is also a member of the Ciity Council, nd, as such, we assumed he must be aware of zoning issues. Enforcement of the .:ovenants is, we believe, the crucial issue in this matter. We favor fairness to alll parties, but would not like to see the .powers. and responsibilities of the Architectural Control ~~~ Committee negated without very good cause, for then the entire neighborhood you d ;~~~`~ suffer. ,, ~ ~ ~, '~ ;~~ ~~~v~, 5. In return for a promise by Mr. Kennady to insert a certain restriction iil a deed for lot 9RA `~~F. ~~,~~ (we assumed that lus opinion that violations of the deed restriction had ahead taken place in :~~~-` Sandstone that might compromise the value of that restriction), we agreed to rem ' 1 ~,"~ neutral on lus petition for a replat. We requested that a restnchon be inserted into a deed requiring that any driveway. to a home on the proposed lot 9RA be constructed on the orth side ,, of the lot, so that it would avoid atoo-close proximity to our own driveway, which abu the north side of our adjacent property. (we requested that IVIr. Keiulady uiclude that restrictio ~,ui his proposed plat that he submitted to the Planning Commission and the City Coiuic~il, so tha~ 't would be on record at the earliest possible date, but the restriction does not appear o:n the ~~ proposed plat sent us by the city. Nevertheless, should he be .granted the permission to replat, ~" we would fully expect to see that restriction included.) Our pledge of neutrality depends, of course, on the correctness of Mr. Kennady's opinion that the restriction is unenforceable, and that one of our near neighbors, a member of the Architectural Control Committee, has no abjection to the replat. lii such a case, should permission be granted him, we will take no action to thwart that decision. Judging from the calls we've received, this proposed replat is contrary to the wishes of a number of Sandstone residents, and our main concern is not so much. a personal one regarding this. one property, but a concern for our commuluty if we are not allowed to hold property owners to the agreements they accepted when they purchased their homes. Experience has told us that whoever owns lot 9RA will work diligently to subdivide it to increase their property value. But this increase will probably come at the expense of the neighboring properties. It will'. also set a precedent for replatting properties in ~riolation of a restriction ±hat has remained inviolate for 17 years. Nevertheless, we will leave it up to the Architectural Control Committee, the Planning Commission and the City Council to decide what is right. kr~,~ .. s..~ ~ ~ Suicerely, t, ~ ,t d ~~tN k' 4r ~ ~ c.~t~ ~~ Patricia D Startzman ~n ~ ~~ ~ ' ~: ~ ~ a Richard A Startzman-~~~~i~ ~~ ~ ~- . ~~~ ~~ .~: ~ ~. KENNADY AND TALBERT A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INVOLVING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT V1W 426 YARROW, SUITE 106 GOL%.EdE $TATIOPT, TEXAS 77840 E. HUBBARO KENNADY III September 15, 1995 TELEPHONE: 409 •846-7680 TELECOPIEIi 409 •846.1272 RICHARD D. TALBERT Mr. Ron Eikenhorst 2000 Oakwood Trail College Station, Texas 77845 Re: Replat of 9R; Our File No.: 95-0116 Dear Ron: Please be informed that I am in receipt of your letter dated September 1, 1995, and received on September 5, 1995. As you know, prior to submitting the replat I visited you in your home;, as well as my other neighbor, Richard Startzman, and was told by you at that time, and separatel;~ by Dick, at that time -that while you would prefer for the lot to remain vacant that you would have no objections to the replato Since our initial visit, you have had yourself appointed, in conjunction with Tony Jones, to the Architectural Control Committee, which would appear to be somewhat of a conflict of interest because you already had your mind determined on the issue. I am still respectful of our personal and family friendship, and would offer the sale of this lot to you or Dick at a price that is $20,000 less than what we have it priced on the market. This offer is good for two (2) weeks from the above date. As you know, Tony Jones has had various replats granted by the city of College Station over the last fifteen (15) years -replats which were to the financial benefit of Tony Jones and others. Replats that ostensibly met the single family dwelling requirements of the City. Specifically, there was, originally, Lot 10, which was a dedicated pond lot, in which tlhe original plat shows the words "This Lot not suitable for building." Through the replat process, in February, 1978, not even one (1) year after the original. plat was submitted and approved, Mr. Jones and others redrew lot lines which in fact created a Lost which was sold to Wayne Thomas, former car dealer. This home was built on a very questionable tract of land - in fact, it flooded due to overflow in the pond, which necessitated Mr. Thomas knocking a spillway in the dam. As you know, this adversely affected my water flow - to which the Architectural Control Committee did absolutely nothing to correct since Tony Jones had helped to create this now buildable Lot! Thus, the number of buildable Lots has increased from 20 to 21. In fact, Wick McKean can still subdivide 14.41 acres in Lot 20 and can create at least seven (7) amore Lots. Additionally, as Mr. Jones knows, this new replat would not increase the total number of lots since Mr. Jones in another replat request that was granted, reduced the total number of lot by one because he combined some acreage, on land which I believe was owned by him, and which action he took because it benefitted him personally. I think there was yet even another replat, but I do not yet have that document. I have also heard the argument that you were "guaranteed the right to a view of the pond'° by a local realtor. I am indeed sorry if a local realtor made representations to you of this nature. There are no provisions in the restrictions regarding the rights of view. There are a host of other factors which you have chosen to ignore in your letter, a copy of which you sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which I must now take the effort to correct. * I must first respectfully note that Mr. Bruce Miles, a "new°' member of the Committee sent a letter to the City Manager a few days before he was °'appointed" to the Committee, which essentially sought to accuse and punish me because I hold a voluntary, non-paid, public service position with the City. I do not wish to be placed on a "chopping block" by Mr. Miles because I have dedicated hours of time for a volunteer job. In fact, I am having to spend $10,000 to put in a sewer line, just as anyone else would be required to do. * Simply stated, I don't want to be denied the right a replat a 1.96 acre tract, when there are two (2) other homes which are 1.97 acres in size, and one that is actually smaller at 1.93 acres. * I strongly believe, as we have discussed, that Tony Jones acted unilaterally, and to his personal benefit, over the last fifteen (15) years with regard to the actions which he has taken. I have told this to both you and Mary since the beginning. You have in fact agreed with my observations. * I have repeatedly asked Tony Jones for a copy of all of the Architectural Control Committee documents - As you well know, Tony was the original developer and, with his wife, comprised two-thirds (2/3) of the Architectural Control Committee, until two (2) weeks ago, or two (2) years ago, depending on which letter is used. * While in your home on or about August 31, 1995, I .asked Tony for written documentation of the replats to which Tony Jones and his wife gave written approval as members of the Architectural Control Committee, and his response was, "You have my word on it, Hub." To which I responded, °'Tony that puts me in a very difficult position." * There is also some question in my mind regarding the fact that you were appointed to the Architectural Control Committee two (2) years ago, and indicated to me that you received a letter appointing you and Bruce Miles to the committee, and that Tony Jones was off the committee since he no longer lived in the neighborhood. Now, Tony has. tried to assert that he did not resign with that letter. I am formally requesting a copy of the letter which you received from Tony Jones over two (2) years ago. * Tony Jones has been off the committee for the last (2) years but has acted as '°policeman," which was incorrect and not in accordance with the law. The prior owner of the home did not go to his neighbors, as I have done and at least I tried to visit with them on the issue. John Stropp attempted to subdivide a 1.70 acre lot from the 3.93 - not a 1.96 acre replat as I have done. Ron, I believe that this 1.96 acre tract is a piece of property that perfectly fits the manifE;st purpose of the covenants, and having a price competitive and even more expensive than most of the lots in Sandstone and will ensure that an attractive single family dwelling will be built in this arf;a. The benefits sought to be gained through the covenants will continue to be gained with this tract. I don't believe the Committee acted reasonably and in good faith since the decision was made without even asking me to speak to you and Bruce -which you had already made up your minds. when I happened to come to your house just after the decision had just been made. Since this replat would be .02 hundreds of an acre larger than the smallest existing lot iri Sandstone, and since it is .O1 hundreds of an acre smaller than three (3) existing homes, I cannot believe that any difference is more than a de minimus difference, and in short, the prior actions taken by Mr. Jones require a mutuality of obligation that is just, right, and fair. In short, full and consistent effect should be awarded to each and every neighbor. In closing, I stand ready, as I volunteered in your home over three (3) weeks ago, to redraft, at no charge, the restrictions so that a minimum lot size number, i.e. 1.93 acres, would be actually included in the deed restrictions, so that there would be no questions in the future regarding thin matter. Very truly yours, KENNADY AND TALBERT, L.L.P. E. Hubbard Ke ady III EHK:mfb P and Z Commission .CITY OF COI.~L.EGE STATIOI`I Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77042-9960 (409) 764.3500 August 23, 1995 Bruce R. Miles 2017 Qakwood Trail College Station, TX. 77845 Dear Mr. Miles, After researching the problem that you have outlined in your letter dated August 20th there is some information that needs to be clarified. The restrictions that you speak of in your letter are deed restrictions and as such the city has no authority to enforce. The enforcement of these deed restrictions rests with the owners of property in the subdivision. The only restrictions that the city enforces are the ones contained in the city's codes and ordinances. In College Station any property owner has the right to subdivide his property by plat if the subdivision meets all of the applicable parts of the subdivision ordinance. In the case of Councilman Kennady's property, he can subdivide the lot as long as he meets all the criteria set forth in the subdivision regulations. In the case of the CSISD property the former owner of the tract subdivided the property without a plat and sold the parcel to `she school. Tlie CSISD did not realize tl'~at `~h~, property had been illegally subdivided. At this point the property will have to be platted before it can be used. I hope this information clarifies some of the misunderstanding that exists in this case, however if you should have any- questions regarding this or other matters please contact Mr. Elrey Ash in the Economic and Development Services Department at 764-3570. Home of Texas A5M Clniversity ACCOUNT NO. ~ ®ry ®1 CITY, OF~OL,L STATION ~ - ~ ;~ ; 1~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ C ~ , , ,s _ l~~,F_ RECEIVED -: ,, . FOR ,'}~~ ~~ ~ C ~ ~~-, F"~z~, // , y r ~' I ~' - ~ ~,~ ~Jr ~ ~ ,J Paid by _ Check lx~'~ Cash _ THANK YOU "~\ ~ \ ~~\ 1 1 OI. 0996~~I3~ I3~ ~463~763 X96® ~.~~1[~~'d°®~'E ~~ (~®9) 693-6 9 C®H~1L~(8~ 5'("~',2'~O~T, 'd'X 77~~ !/ 86.257/1131 B ~ ~`~ ~~~ $ ~~ VICTORIA BANK & TRUST 7607 ROCK PRAIRIE ROAD COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77845 MEMBER: VICTORIA BANKSHARES, INC/FDIC 843 ~.113i02578~. 5600347i46~~' 0769 From: Shirley Volk To: Hkennady Date: 6/18/96 2:16pm Subject: Plat Hub: Just a note to let you know we've received a faxed copy of the fmancial guarantee from Tim Jones for the infrastruction. However, we still haven't filed the plat since we haven't received the $ we tallced about on Friday for parkland and that other small fee. Let me know if you have any questions about this. CC: JCallaway, SNoe ~~~~~ yr .~ A~,, ~ ~~ a ~ ~ ,i ~~ ~~~~~ ~-~ ,~ ~~ ~~~ ~ 4~ ~~ ~~ ¢~ ~~ y ~ ~` From: Hubbard Kennady To: SVOLK Date: 6/18/96 4:48pm Subject: Plat -Reply Pll get the check to you in next day or two...Thanks, Hub TONY JON1~5 CO1'dSTRUCTIaN CpMpANY, RESTRICTION8 ~ CON'f INt~IED INC. and W. A. A4cK13Aid . the date oz this i.nstru~Ient, and approval required by this paragraph shall not be re<luirau unless, priax to saiu d:~t~; and affect~Lve thereon, the then record owners of a majority of the lots u~nting llere~to shall ®xecu~exanr`yenLativesecwho shallstheroafterpe,KeTCi3e a reprezsdutative, 0 1~ the sarue powers ant duties granted here oval or®disapirovalra Control Committee. Ttie Committe®'s aPP If tl~e Comm~xttee, as required herein, shall b® in writing. royal or .its dosignat~~tZli.nrthixtyt(30)fdays aftervplanstand specifications or disapproval Qvent, if no suit to enjoin have b®en submitted to it, or in aroval will not be required improvements has Veen bxought, app anti thv r®lat©d covc~nants$s~nl.buildinbmaredoandvlocationuiny satisfied. Th© deva.ation instances where, its judgn~euse.suSucheapprovalwmustrbeuSranted a worn commonly beneficYal i;i writing and whole given will become a part of these restrictions. lltiu]rLLING SIZE- AND COA(STAUCTION The heated area of each main residential structu'rg~a es, exclusive of opan or screened porches, open terraces, and ,g S shall not be less than 1,00 sth~rerouiid~floorafornsffioneoand~500 square feet of heater. area on g one-half yr two story residential structure. BUILDING LOCATION No building vx fence shall be located on any lot, nearer to the fY~ont lot line tlearerOtoethenrearelotriinetthani25 feet. line titan. 2S feet nor n LOT AREA AND WIDTH No lot nor lots within the addit~e~ mey~igs~eonu"dfivided or in any way reduced in size without writ p the Architectural Control Committee. NUISANC$S No noxi+aus or offensive activity shall be p®~ittod upon auy lot, nox shalt orynuisance tontheh~eiglltorhood~ay be or becoicie any annoyan .. 7• };;~ig~7RltRY S'I'RUCTt) RT S i~o structure of a temporary c'r;ar:~cter, trailer, ba-senert, ~•n!.1 y p ~.^r1 E: ~ t<>x~r ,.~_.,..~~ ,.~r~,~Y~ F bare ^r ~~t'~C'1' outbui~.di.tt s sr:ali ue uses oIr i,~tly lc~~ aL a~~y tiir;e d5 :;~ r~;siacncQ either temporaril or p®rmanently. •SIGN4 No signs of any kind ahaTl be dis~a~ayesd to the pa%blic view on any lot exc©pt one sign of not moxe than five. square feet advertisinb t}ie propexty for- sale col~xnnttherconstruction by a builder to aavQrtise the property B and sales period. .)I I. A?vU I~tINI1JG t~PFii11TI~~~+s No oil drilling, oil deveanop~ind shalltbenpermittedfining, quarryingg or mining operations of y upon or in any lot. r n J/ ;' ~F TONY JONES CONSTRUCTION CON~ANY, RESTRICTION3~ C(JN?INtJED: ING. and W. A. R4cKLAN tlae date of this instrument, and approval required by this paragraph shall not be rec~uirau un:lLss, }prior to saiu date; and affeet:ive thereon, the then xecord owna~s of a ynajority of the lots opting hereto shall execute and file for'reeoxd azi instrum®nt app a reprc~santative: or x~:Prosentanted$hereingtolthellbr..chitecturalci38 the same powers aiict duties Era royal or disap royal Control Cozumittee. T}ie Gommitte®'s app ~ as requir~sd heroin, shall be in writing. If the Comm~.tte8roval or .its designatwit~i°inrthirtyt(30)fdays after planstand spea~ifications or disapproval event, if no suit to enjoin leave been submitted to it, or in araval will not be required improvements has 'ueen brought, app aricl the relat©d cove:nanonsginlbuildinbmareaoaiidvlocationuir~y satisfied. Tha desvxati instances where, its judgn-ent, such devia~avalwmustrbeugranted a morn commonly beneficial use. Such apZ in writing and whvii given will become a part of these restrictions. liw1:LLING 5IZE~ AND CONSTRUCTION The heated ar®a of each main residential structurara es, exclusive of open orasc~@bO dsqua=eefeetl,candearminimum ofg1,500 shall not be less th , square £eet of heated arsidenti~]. structur~oor for s one and one-half or two story re BUILDING LOC,ATYON No building or fence shall be located on any lot: nearer to the fYtont lot line t}earerOto®thenrearelotrlin®tthani25 feet. line than. 25 feet nor n LOT AREA AND WIDTH No lot nor lots within the addition mey~~ss~eonul~dfivided or in any why r8duced in size without writte p the Architectural Control Committee. NUISANCES No noxious or offensive activitthereon which u~aYtbe upon any lot, nor shall Anything be done or become any antioyanre or nuisance to the ~ceigliborhood. 'I'la~~•SF'OR6tRY STRUCTt3RI:S lvo structure of srzali uQ used. ui~ ajiY liai; or p®rmanently. a terr~pvrary ciia_r:jcter, trailer, basement, ,, ,,~.~~.~, } t,a~-~, ~r nthc~r outbuildf.nr;s aL a~iy time as ~:. r~sider~ca either temporaril SIGN4 No signs of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any lot except one sign of not more than five square feet advertising; the tiseethe fropeYty duringttherconstruction by a builder to adver P and sales period. .) iL r+:N l;i iii i 3v i it G v F r t:t+ T i (= ~ ~, No oil drilling, oil development operations, oil refining, quarrying or mining operations of any kind shall be permitted upon or in any lot.