Laserfiche WebLink
FASEMTS, THEY DID ALLOW THIS PLAT TO BE PLACED ON RECORD, AND IT <br />IS HIS FEELING THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD GIVE SOME TYPE OF RELIEF - <br />EITHER PUT IN A DITCH FROM 4TH STREET SOUTH TO THE UTILITY EASEMENT <br />BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5, BRING THE PROBLEM TO THE DEVELOPER'S ATTENTION <br />AND ASK HIM TO REMEDY THE SITUATION, OR POSSIBLY ASSESS THE PROPERTY <br />OWNERS INVOLVED FOR THE COST OF DIGGING THE DITCH. MR. NELSON CON- <br />FIRMED THAT THE COUNTY DID ALLOW THIS SUBDIVISION TO BE PLATTED, BUT <br />IT APPEARS THAT PROPER DRAINAGE WAS NEVER PUT IN HAEGER HIGHLANDS <br />AND MR. PRESCOTT IS BEING FLOODED AS A RESULT. <br />RAY PRESCOTT INFORMED THE BOARD THAT 9TH COURT IS A PRIVATE <br />ROAD MAINTAINED BY THE RESIDENTS. IT IS PAVED, BUT NOT TO COUNTY <br />STANDARDS. HE NOTED THAT THE COUNTY ACCEPTED THIS SUBDIVISION FOR <br />PLATTING IN MAY OF 1975 AND ASKED WHAT WAS APPROVED IN THE WAY OF <br />DRAINAGE. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT LEGALLY, HE DID NOT FEEL THE <br />BOARD HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS SITUATION. IN REGARD TO THE <br />ZONING DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS, HE NOTED THAT CLEARLY THE THIRD SUGGES- <br />TION IN REGARD TO ASSESSING THE PROPERTY OWNERS IS NOT AUTHORIZED. <br />HE FELT THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE SUBDIVISION DO HAVE THE RESPONSI- <br />BILITY, AND HE SUGGESTED THE BOARD (DULD COOPERATE IN ORGANIZING <br />WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO GET THIS CLEARED UP. <br />MR. PRESCOTT STATED THAT HE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE <br />COUNTY COULD APPROVE SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, <br />HE CONTINUED THAT WHETHER IT WAS BUILT ACCORDINGLY OR NOT, THE COUNTY <br />DID ACCEPT THE PLAT AND HE FELT THEY SHOULD CORRECT THE PROBLEM. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT IN MARCH OF 1975 THE <br />BOARD APPROVED AN ENTIRELY NEW SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, WHICH IS CUR- <br />RENTLY IN EFFECT, HAEGER HIGHLANDS APPARENTLY WAS GRANDFATHERED <br />IN AND WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 1.975 ORDI- <br />NANCE, WHICH HAS MUCH MORE STRINGENT STANDARDS THAN THE PRIOR LAWS <br />REGULATING SUBDIVISION. PAVED ROADS ARE NOW REQUIRED, FOR INSTANCE. <br />- MR. PRESCOTT NOTED THAT THE ATTORNEY HAD STATED THAT THE <br />-COUNTY HAS NO OBLIGATION, BUT THE PROPERTY OWNERS DID, AND ATTORNEY <br />OCT 101979 67 BOOK FAGE 695 <br />