6/6/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M should not read "which did not have frontage," and staff_ _ confirmed that it should. Commissioner Wodtke then brought up petition paving, and believed we can always get a request from property owners to go into that program. Public Works Director Davis pointed out that our petition paving policy does require a certain percentage of signatures, and the problem is that if a developer has a 1/4 mile of unpaved road to his development and those people are not interested and will not sign, he cannot obtain a valid petition. Chairman Scurlock noted the ordinance says we do not have to have any signatures for a special improvement, and Commissioner Lyons felt that was correct, but believed there would have to be an awfully good reason to take that action. Commissioner Wodtke brought up the example of 16th St. where there is an on-going project but 16th St. is not paved to the end and asked if in such a case, we could not require the developer to pave that road all the way back to join the pavement, and then as other development occurs in that area, he could recoup the cost. Director Davis felt if the County wanted to take the posture that a developer would only have to pay 500 of the cost of paving the collector road and the County would pay the other 50%, that should be a separate policy and separate part of the Zoning Code; he believed, however, that the County would not be able to bear that burden financially. Chairman Scurlock believed there is a real question about the bookkeeping that would be involved. He noted that money is sitting in escrow for improvements that may never happen, and he had a real concern about a monitoring vehicle to be sure those monies are expended in a proper way and that additional revenue generated from those funds stays in the same kitty. 55 UN 6 1984 BOOK 57 PAGE 317