My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-09-1980 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1980
>
07-09-1980 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/24/2013 11:30:30 AM
Creation date
4/24/2013 11:25:59 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
85
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Clayton Parks <br />June 12, 1980 <br />Page 4 <br />The conversion of apartment units to condominium units <br />is not a subdivision of land but merely a change in the form <br />of ownership. <br />The change in the form of ownership of the units at <br />Fleur Royale does not add new burdens to the City's facilities. <br />The number of dwelling units at Fleur Royale is the same now <br />that it is a condominium as it was before the conversion. The <br />number of people living in Little Canada has not changed as <br />a result of the conversion of Fleur Royale Apartments to condo- <br />miniums. Consequently, the need for parks, playgrounds, public <br />open spaces or storm water holding pond areas has not changed <br />simply because the form of ownership of Fleur Royale has <br />changed. <br />The imposition of such a land dedication requirement, <br />or cash in lieu thereof, may have made sense at the time the <br />original building plans were submitted to the City for its <br />approval prior to construction. At that time, the City could <br />reasonably maintain that the creation of new dwelling units <br />in Little Canada would increase the population and thus increase <br />the need for parks, open spaces, etc. <br />The section of Ordinance No. 161 which is entitled <br />"Park Charges for Individual Dwellings" starts out with a <br />recognition that additional residential dwellings to be <br />constructed create a need for public parks. <br />Paragraph 4 of that section then imposes a park charge <br />on only one type of existing dwelling units, condominiums which <br />were formerly rental dwellings. <br />No such park charge is imposed upon existing single <br />family dwellings nor upon existing rental apartment units. <br />Why? <br />This discrimination raises serious questions regarding <br />the constitutional validity of Ordinance No. 161. <br />We are aware that Ordinance No. 161 has, in effect, <br />been replaced by Ordinance No. 164 Subdivision Ordinance, which <br />became effective subsequent to its adoption on March 26, 1980. <br />Ordinance No. 164 does not appear to permit the City to impose <br />a park charge on existing dwelling units, even rental units <br />converted to ownership units. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.