Georgetown Crossing HOA

HOA Letter to the City of Georgetown

Letter in Reference to St. Helen's Church Driveway

March 28, 2005

Mayor Gary Nelon
The City Council for the City of Georgetown, Texas
101 E. 7th Street
Georgetown, TX. 78626

St. Helen’s Catholic Church
Highway 29 East
Georgetown, TX. 78626


Dear Sir,

We are writing to you on behalf of the Georgetown Crossing Homeowner’s Association and the residents of the Georgetown Crossing subdivision to bring to your attention our dispute over the St. Helen’s Catholic Church and School “driveway.” The goal of this letter is to provide a single, strong and united voice regarding our community’s concerns and our hope that the City of Georgetown will take a moment to review carefully our concerns, and right the wrongs that have been occurring. The signatures accompanying this letter represent real people; many are families with small children, with a growing sense of anxiety, anger and frustration.

For the purpose of this letter we are going to address St. Helen’s Catholic Church as “the Church” and the roadway that was built that runs from Churchill Farms to the parking lot of St. Helen’s Catholic Church as “the Driveway”.

It is our understanding that we had ownership of land containing an easement at the West end of our property bordering land owned by the Church and properties to the South of the Church currently being used as corn fields. It was our understanding that this easement was necessary for the farm properties to gain access to a highway before our neighborhood was constructed, but is no longer required for any of these properties now that Inner Loop and our subdivision has been constructed. The Georgetown Crossing Homeowner’s Association maintains insurance on this property and we have been keeping the maintenance on the property such as mowing.

Last summer, the Church made improvements on the road easement south of the land they own, including paving over the property owned by The Georgetown Crossing Homeowner’s Association. This was done without the consent of the Georgetown Crossing Homeowner’s Association. The Church then removed existing curbs and screening of a parking lot on their property to connect to these improvements. To the best of our knowledge all of this was done without any approved plat indicating they had any intention of doing so, and without any approved site plan modifications showing these improvements. It was also done despite the fact that the Church owns its own easement on the west side of their property that would intersect with Highway 29 in such a position that a traffic light could be placed at this intersection. To construct this western driveway on Highway 29 seems it would be the best way for the Church to spend its money instead imposing itself in the manner that they have.

If before our neighborhood was platted, the Church had submitted a plat for their land showing use of the easement, we all would agree that they would have a right to do so. They did not do this. The Church platted its property showing that they were not using the road easement, and indeed their site-plan showed they could not use it because of where the Church placed their parking lot. In fact, these documents indicate what the Church would do if the road easement was vacated, looking forward to the day when that would occur.

Our neighborhood was platted in such a way as to preclude the improvement of the easement as a road per the City of Georgetown regulations. If the Church had an intention of improving the easement the way that they did, then they should have objected at the time that our neighborhood was platted. The Church did not do this. If the City of Georgetown construed that the Church might in the future make use of the easement, they clearly should not have platted the neighborhood as they did.

When the Church subsequently decided to use the easement, they apparently decided to do so without going through the platting process or even the site plan approval process. The Church proceeded with construction that destroyed required screening and in doing so created a situation that violates the City of Georgetown regulations as best as we can make them out. We notified the Church that we believed that what they were doing violated the City of Georgetown regulations. For City of Georgetown employees, not the City of Georgetown Government, to let the Church do what they did knowing full well about such things as driveway separations, etc. were being violated in the process also seems extremely wrong to us.

We think it should be worth something that the Georgetown City Council approved our subdivision plats, which are elected officials. The one time that we know that the Church submitted something that required approval from the Georgetown City Council, they endeavored to keep the “driveway” out of the discussion. After public objections, the Church then withdrew the PUD that required public approval and has been attempting to make improvements through a series of “minor revisions” that require no scrutiny of elected public officials. We think this back door tactic to accomplish their personal agenda without seeking and obtaining approval from Georgetown City Government is just wrong.

As an example of what the Church proposed, without creating new site plan and after building the driveway, the church submitted a plan to turn part of the “road easement” into a parking lot, and further remove screening and buffering. If in one case the church maintains the right to use the road easement for road/driveway improvements, it seems wrong to then claim the right, when it’s convenient for them, to use it as a parking lot. Particularly since this would remove existing and required screening/buffering between Church and the neighborhood and the city had earlier informed the church, when reviewing earlier plans, that buffering needed to be maintained. The city has verbally informed the HOA that this latest “improvement” would not be acceptable, but at this point we do not even know what the Church is going to want to do next.

We accept the need and right of the Church to expand, but we require that such development abide by all local, state and federal laws, as well as city codes, ordinances, and regulations. It is our belief that the Church has utilized its political and community strength due to its parishioners to influence the City of Georgetown to make concessions where the Church is concerned and allowed them to proceed with a development that is illegal according to the City of Georgetown’s own standards. We also require that the City of Georgetown and the Church recognize that the actions they have taken impacts our community and you have permitted a “driveway” to be constructed without first considering the rights of these homeowners, and the safety and well being of our community.

We are going to do our best to articulate the exact violation(s) and concerns that we believe the Church has committed and that the City of Georgetown permitted by allowing the construction of the “driveway” as it now exists. What sort of violation(s) that may have occurred depends greatly on what you consider the “driveway” to be classified as and whether you consider it built under the current UDC or previous Subdivision Regulations? To our knowledge, the City of Georgetown has yet to take a position as to how they wish to classify the “driveway,” whether it is an easement, driveway, roadway, alley, right of way, etc., but there is a correspondence from the Planning Division Head stating what the Church built was a “driveway.” With this in mind, we will begin by addressing our issues on the “driveway.”

It is our understanding that the Church built the “driveway” in 2004 apparently under regulations in force back in 1996-1997, which were the Subdivision Regulations. The Church is calling this a “driveway” across its entire length which runs over 600 feet by estimate. This causes a number of problems, which include:

1.) The Subdivision Regulations define a driveway as a connection for a “front yard.” This is not in the front yard of the Church’s lot; it is in the side/back of the property. The regulations have a provision for an alley in the back, with restrictions, but the City of Georgetown does not appear to want to call this an alley.

2.) The Church has a parking lot that needed to be and was screened from road right of way. When the Church built the “driveway,” they removed this screening and now have an unscreened parking lot. Regardless of anything else, this seems to be a violation in building the connection from the Church to the Driveway. Permission, if the Church had it, to completely pave the entire road easement would not automatically include their connecting to this pavement as they did in violation of screening requirements. As of yet, we have not seen any attempt on the part of the City of Georgetown to explain or correct this.

3.) The Subdivision Regulations call for a separation between residential driveways of at least fifty feet (50’) and for a non-residential driveway of one hundred fifty feet (150’). Neither is met with the nearest houses on Ascot Street or on Churchill Farms. The City of Georgetown may take the position that this does not apply to the homes on Ascot Street because the driveway does not connect with Ascot Street. This would be open to debate because the driveway does actually connect to the declared right of way of Ascot Street. Even if you debate the Ascot Street issue, we think there is no debating that there is a connection to Churchill Farms and the driveway does not meet the one hundred fifty foot (150’) separation according to the regulations.

4.) The City of Georgetown could try, and has tried previously, to get around the driveway separation regulation in reference to Churchill Farms by declaring that the driveway only goes to where it would intersect with Churchill Farms and the Church then built a road extension to Churchill Farms. This would make more logical sense, but previous correspondence between the City of Georgetown and members of our community do not reflect this position. Part of the problem is that the extension of Churchill Farms as such should have been plated before it was built, and it wasn’t platted.

5.) There are other problems supposing that the driveway extends all the way across Churchill Farms. What happened to the existing declared Churchill Farms Right of Way in our neighborhood?

The City of Georgetown has tried to explain that while there is no explicit road platting, the 1996 or 1997 plat for the Church showed the road easement and this should have been equated to permission to build a road. It is not clear how this allows a driveway to have been built instead, and we do not know how this can be reconciled.

Nonetheless, considering the road easement as a road right of way actually makes for more severe problems.

1.) All of the houses with rear lots adjoining this “Road Right of Way” should have been plated with twenty-foot (20’) setbacks. This was not done. Lot forty (40) on Ascot Street, for example, had only a 7.5-foot setback. This should have clearly been shown as a variance on the plat so that a homeowner would know that the lot was specially encumbered in this way.

2.) Since considering this a road easement as approved for a road right of way, the house on Lot number 2 on Ascot Street should have had a greater side setback than it did, 25 feet instead of 7.5 feet. This also was not listed as a variance on the plat and the homeowner was not informed of this encumbrance. The City of Georgetown has tried to state, that they did not build the road or driveway down the middle of the easement, so it does not matter. But, the law talks about the setback to the Right of Way, not to the actual built pavement.

3.) Considering the easement as a road right of way also violates the distance requirements for a driveway to an intersection. A representative from the City of Georgetown has verbally said that this requirement only applies to the extent that it is possible to maintain the separation on a lot. In fact, had the City of Georgetown insisted that the road easement constitute a right of way, there are two houses in the community that have driveways not conforming to this, but they could have been designed to meet the requirement at the time they were being built. In approving building permits, the City of Georgetown never seemed to take into consideration any possibility that this easement should be considered a right of way and therefore never required the builder to design to the separation requirement. This is understandable in a way, if the plat never really did indicate that the easement should have been considered a road right of way and the proper variances, as indicated earlier, were never noted for the lots in question.

4.) Considering this road as a right of way and Churchill Farms as a collector under the subdivision regulations, the sight triangle requirements for an intersection are also violated, as we understand them.

Other ways of construing what has been built (road, alley, driveway, etc.) and to what ordinance would yield other or different potential violations. That is why it is necessary for the City of Georgetown to define what was actually built and under what regulations. Just getting the City of Georgetown to take a position has been arduous.

We also claim that there is no evidence that the “driveway” was ever included in any approved site plan nor has any Church plat ever shown that the Church intended to make use of the road easement. The Church’s construction plans were approved by an engineer as construction plans, but that is all. We have to get a permit to put a portable building on our own property or install a sprinkler system in our own yard. This is minor construction compared to the construction of a driveway or roadway. It is questionable that the Church has ever received the appropriate permits to construct this “driveway.”

The laws of the land are for everyone regardless if you are an individual or an entity such as the Church. The law is for everyone and no one is above that law. We expect the City of Georgetown to make the Church adhere to the law. Since the improper development of the driveway we strongly assert that the Church has endangered the lives of the residents in our small community. The traffic has increased and it does not just impact our community on Sundays. There is extensive traffic every day of the week and many of the parishioners drive into our community at excessive and unsafe speeds. A majority of the parishioners ignore traffic signs that are in place for community safety. We have citizens who have video taped and documented many near collisions as well as unacceptable behavior. We sure hope it is not going to take the fatality death of someone from our community before the City of Georgetown will act.

The Georgetown Crossing Homeowners Association and the residents of the Georgetown Crossing Community respectfully request that the City of Georgetown take the following actions.

1.) We request that this issue be researched and discussed by the elected body of the Georgetown City Council.

2.) Barricade the driveway at Churchill Farms and at the Church parking lot in such a manner as to not permit further usage until this dispute has been considered carefully by the City of Georgetown and a vote is taken.

3.) We request that all current and future improvements and expansions planned by St. Helen’s Catholic Church be presented with full disclosure to the City of Georgetown and that the Georgetown Crossing Homeowner’s Association be informed in advance of any such proposals so that the homeowners can voice any and all objections or concerns.

4.) Have the driveway and parking lot removed from the property that belongs to The Georgetown Crossing Homeowners Association, or at least negotiate with the Homeowners Association Board to see if a resolution can be reached.

5.) Have the Church promptly reinstall the screening buffer and sound barriers between our community and the Church.

The Georgetown Crossing Homeowners Association Board are willing to meet with the Georgetown City Council or representatives from the City of Georgetown to discuss resolutions as well as meeting with representatives from St. Helen’s Catholic Church to discuss solutions. We are very willing to attempt to resolve this without it escalating, but we do not want to endure what has occurred previously where the Church has just informed us as to what they are going to do and doing it without one concern or care for our rights or our feelings on the matter.

Respectfully,




_________________________________
Michael L. Horton
President
Georgetown Crossing HOA





__________________________________
Keith Burris
Vice President
Georgetown Crossing HOA





_________________________________
Donna Spector
Secretary
Georgetown Crossing HOA




_________________________________
Romi Burke
Treasurer
Georgetown Crossing HOA