My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-26-1983 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
01-26-1983 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2013 1:50:44 PM
Creation date
6/10/2013 1:47:32 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
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
"E=Tc <br />Planning <br />Commission <br />Jan. ',, !9S7 <br />Cary "mith <br />Variance <br />(Cont.) <br />The Planner stated that t'ic City will have a hard tine assessing a <br />road against Parcel A. <br />Mr. French pointed out that on July 13, 1977 the City Council agreed <br />to grant a property division and variance for a substandard street. <br />The Planner stated that there was a condition that when the lots <br />were developed the developer put in and paid for a road. <br />Mr. Smith pointed out that the lot in question was not owned by <br />Mr. Caplette when this occurred. <br />Mrs. Timmons asked if the Smith's were opposed to using the easement <br />now and when the road went in being assessed. Mrs. Timmons also <br />stated that Mr. Smith will be spending money for sewer now and <br />when the City brings in the sewer line, he will be assessed again. <br />Mr. Smith stated that he realized that he would pay twice for sewer. <br />Mr. LeMay stated that whoever develops the property will put the <br />road and sewer in, not the City. <br />Mr. French asked if there was a certain length of time before'a <br />Council action rescinded if there was no action on it. The Planner <br />replied that the division was approved by the City, but the developer <br />never recorded it. The Planner stated that under the current ordinance <br />there is a certain amount of time that a developer has to take action <br />before the approval would rescind. <br />'irs. Timmons stated that a new Council can rescind any act+.on of a <br />previous Council. Mrs. Timmons stated that she felt the variance <br />should he granted. <br />The Planner stated that the Council must determine the assessment <br />policy in this case. <br />'!r. LeMay stated that the City will not assess, as the developer of <br />the Caplette property will probably put any improvements in. <br />The ?tanner pointed out the problem that there is no fronta,e on <br />rublic street. <br />r. Lelay asked if the only way Lot C coutd he developed was by this <br />road. The Tanner replied that this was correct. <br />'!rs. Timmons asked if there would he a problem in the Future with the <br />devetonment of a road because of the 15 foot nasemant to the nroperty <br />in question. The Planner stated that there would not he a problem <br />as the 15 foot easement was not owned by Mr. Smith, but .ins just <br />an easement dedicated by the Caplette's <br />Page -8- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.