My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/18/1979
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1979
>
7/18/1979
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:43:39 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 11:06:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/18/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
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
L_ I <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT THIS SITUATION CAME TO LIGHT <br />THROUGH A COMPLAINT MADE ABOUT NO DRAINAGE AND WATER BACKING UP. <br />ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THIS PARTICULAR <br />I <br />COMPLAINT INVOLVES PONDEROSA ESTATES, UNIT 1, WHICH LIES SOUTH OF NORTH <br />GIFFORD ROAD AT 60TH AVENUE. <br />COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED IF THE REASON FOR THE FLOODING IS <br />BECAUSE THE DITCH WAS NOT MAINTAINED, AND COMMISSIONER SIEBERT EXPLAINED <br />IT IS A RESULT OF THE DITCH BEING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND BEING FILLED <br />IN OVER THE YEARS. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT THE PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT THE PROPERTY <br />CREATED THE POOR DRAINAGE. <br />ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS REPORTED THAT HE HAS OBTAINED A PLAT <br />OF PONDEROSA ESTATES AND HAD SOME PICTURES TAKEN. THE DITCH DRAINS <br />PROPERLY TO THE NORTH, BUT IT IS NOT ON THE 10' EASEMENT. TO THE SOUTH <br />IT IS ALL GROWN UP, AND THERE ARE 14 GOOD SIZE TREES ON THE EASEMENT <br />THAT --WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED; IN ADDITION, ONE PROPERTY OWNER HAS PUT <br />A 6" PIPE IN THERE WITHOUT ANY PERMIT. THE ADMINISTRATOR AGREED THAT <br />THE DITCH SHOULD BE OPENED, BUT STATED THAT IT IS HIS FEELING WHEN <br />PROPERTY OWNERS FILL UP A DRAINAGE FACILITY TO BEAUTIFY THEIR OWN LAND <br />AND AS A RESULT, FLOOD THEIR NEIGHBORS OUT, IT SHOULD NOT BE THE COUNTY'S <br />RESPONSIBILITY. HE EXPRESSED FURTHER CONCERN ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE <br />ARE A NUMBER OF THESE OLD DEVELOPMENTS WHERE THE DEVELOPERS CUT A SNAKE - <br />BACK SHOVEL DITCH AROUND TREES AND NOT ON -AN EASEMENT, AND THE EXPENSE <br />OF REMOVING ALL THESE TREES WOULD BE PROHIBITIVE. HE FELT THE -BOARD, <br />IN ESTABLISHING A POLICY, MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT THIS WOULD <br />AMOUNT TO OVERALL RATHER THAN JUST IN THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. HE <br />THEN DISCUSSED VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES TO HELP THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT <br />WITH THEIR DRAINAGE PROBLEM, I.E., BY GRADING THE ROAD, MOVING THE <br />SWALE, REMOVING THE PIPE, ETC., AND NOTED THAT ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY <br />OWNERS WOULD HAVE TO BE ASKED FOR AT LEAST A TEMPORARY EASEMENT AND <br />ALL THIS WOULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE TO ACCOMPLISH. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED IF THERE ISN'T A PENALTY FOR FILLING <br />UP A DRAINAGE DITCH. <br />M <br />BOOK 1 PAGE <br />L <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.