My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8/18/1976
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1976
>
8/18/1976
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:28:19 AM
Creation date
6/9/2015 4:36:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/18/1976
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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
I <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS TOOK THE POSITION THAT THE BOARD SHOULD FOLLOW <br />4 , <br />EXISTING POLICIES. <br />MRS. RRIDWELL PRESENTED PICTURES OF THE TREES SHE IS CONCERNED <br />ABOUT AND NOTED THAT IF THESE WERE REMOVED, THEY WOULD LOSE THEIR PRIVACY. <br />SHE THEN ASKED IF THERE IS ANY WAY TO SUBDIVIDE ONLY THE BACK PART OF THE <br />PROPERTY AND LEAVE THE FRONT AS IT IS. <br />DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO WHETHER THE ACREAGE ON 37TH STREET COULD <br />BE BUILT ON WITHOUT BEING SUBDIVIDED, AND DANA HOWARD NOTED THAT THE PROP- <br />ERTY WAS ORIGINALLY BOUGHT.AS A TEN -ACRE PARCEL AND SO WOULD BE TWO OR MORE <br />LOTS, WHICH REQUIRES A SUBDIVISION. MR. HOWARD ASKED IF THE COUNTY COULD <br />GIVE°ANY GUARANTEE THAT NOTHING WILL BE TOUCHED UNTIL THE RIGHT OF WAY IS <br />USED FOR ROAD PURPOSES, <br />COMMISSIONER Loy STATED THAT WE CAN ONLY GIVE THE SAME ASSURANCE <br />-THAT IS GIVEN TO EVERYONE ELSE, THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY I'S SET ASIDE FOR ROAD <br />PURPOSES AND, UNTIL IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, IT WILL NOT BE USED, <br />ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS STATED THAT IT IS NOT COUNTY POLICY TO <br />REMOVE TREES, BUT IT IS COUNTY POLICY TO ACQUIRE RIGHTS OF WAY, BE CON- <br />TINUED THAT THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE PROJECTION FOR THIS ROAD, AND /ICE CHAIR- <br />MAN WODTKE AGREED, STATING THAT, BARRING A GREAT DEVELOPMENT OF THIS AREA, <br />HE DOUBTED IT WOULD BE PAVED.WITHIN THE NEXT 20 YEARS, <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED IN REGARD TO 40TH STREET BECOMING 39TH STREET, <br />AND IT WAS AGREED THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER TO CHANGE ALL THE ROAD NAMES AND <br />NUMBERS AT ONE TIME. <br />MRS. BRIDWELL ASKED IF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE DEDICATION OF A 20' <br />RIGHT OF WAY IS ACTUAL LAW OR JUST POLICY. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT IT IS LEGAL BECAUSE IT IS THE DUTY <br />OF THE COUNTY TO ASSURE AN EVEN TRAFFIC FLOW, AND THEY MUST LOOK TO THE <br />FUTURE NEEDS OF THE COUNTY. <br />ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT UNDER THE COUNTY'S <br />SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, THE MINIMUM WIDTH REQUIRED FOR STREETS IS 50', AND <br />THIS WOULD ONLY BE 30' WITHOUT THE ADDITIONAL 20' RIGHT OF i!AY.' <br />MRS. BRIDWELL ASKED IF TENTATIVE APPROVAL IS GRANTED, IS IT STILL <br />POSSIBLE TO WITHDRAW, AND SHE WAS ASSURED THAT SHE COULD WITHDRAW ANY TIME <br />AUG 18 1976 <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.